/sci/ - Science & Math

Sounds about right.

Stand by for shitstorm from butthurt theists.

babby's first epistemology

>>3725064
>theists
>on /sci/

still?

>>3725057
Actually (you see) science does have a "belief system" called "the scientific method" which assumes all sorts of philosophical stances. For example: the existence of an objective world independent of subjective experience is necessary for science to be internally, logically consistent.

>>3725095
>the existence of an objective world independent of subjective experience is necessary for science to be internally, logically consistent.

Doesn't quantum physics challenge this?

Well kinda. But more so because religion is dependent on faith. Faith according to our dictionary, is firm belief in something for which no proof exists. In other words, if such validations were possible, those concepts would stop being matters of faith and start being matters of science.

Science is based upon the notion of logical positivism. The general position of which is that only that which can POSITIVELY be proven exists. Negetives like 'God DOESN'T exist' don't exist in logical positivism. Quite simply science cannot say that God doesn't exist. It doesn't relate to the common definition of truth. If you believe that science (eg. logical positivism) can prove negatives (Such as 'God does not exist') you've exited science proper, and entered the realm where science is a religion. Science is a tool like a wrench, and if you look to it for truth in the layman sense of the word you distinctly missed the point.

Thus science is consistent with religious thinking, since both belong to totally different realms of truth. Religious truth being willing to believe in things being un-true, and science ignoring that which it cannot prove within it's axioms to be true.

I'm an atheist by the way.

>>3725095
Personally, I would argue that the things you are talking about are not axioms assumed by science, but simply the consequences of the consistent use of an agreed upon set of symbols or language. I don't have to assume that the "objective" world exists to do science. I just have to agree that what we both mean by a "thing" or a "substance" is a group of observations that are consistently found together.

>>3725095
But is that so hard to take as an axiom? Would you prefer us being solipsists and nihilists?

At least we don't start with "God exists and he created everything also he is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscience and omnibenevolent. He is made up of the son, the father and the holy spirit in the holy trinity. You can talk to him in prayer and he can manipulate things to answer you requests... etc."

>>3725057

Let me preface this by saying that I am an atheist. Please don't assume I agree with religious types on this point. I am just playing devil's advocate.

Religious people see it differently. There is a body of revealed religious knowledge. and that is incontestable. Any new doctrine or bit of revealed religious knowledge must pass the test of being reconcilable with previous religious knowledge, or it is considered heresy (their version of unsubstantiated). Thus they see it as testing new ideas through analyzing them in the light of previously known facts.

It's an ass-backwards system of thought, but that's why they argue that they do think for themselves.

>>3725128
>antiquated philosophy whose largest proponents long ago admitting they were completely wrong.

Positivism is dead. Pragmatism is the modern philosophy of science. Where were your for the last 40 years?

Science = There is no everlasting Truth. Facts change in light of new evidence

Jesus Christ = Everlasting Truth.

Science and Jesus Christ aren't water and oil.
In fact, I've never seen science prove that you can turn water into wine. In fact, science says it's impossible.

God is above the laws of science, who would have thought?

>>3725128
>antiquated philosophy whose largest proponents long ago admitted they were completely wrong.

Positivism is dead. Pragmatism is the modern philosophy of science. Where were your for the last 40 years?

>>3725145

>>Pragmatism is the modern philosophy of science.

So the philosophy of science has been completely thrown out the window? If so, how does science decide truth? Or do you mean to imply that things are only 'science' when they comply to your materialist-atheist view point?

>>3725128
Is it impossible for God to exist?

>>3725133
I wasn't trying to imply anything more than what I said. Keep your pants on.
>>3725129
I'm trying hard to make sense of what you said but I must conclude that it makes no sense. You could try being more clear, but I must warn you that everything is either baseless or based on explicit axioms. This is how logic works. And certainly science is purported to be logical.

>>3725188

I don't know and don't pretend to. I'm an atheist for no other reason then that I've never seen a god or any other strange occurrence that couldn't be explained by non-intelligent means.

>>3725188

If you mean the Christian God or one like Him, yes, it is. Here's why.

>The bible calls God "all-mighty" (the original Hebrew word means omnipotent.)
>The bible calls God "all-knowing" (the original hebrew means omniscient).

If a future can be known, it cannot be changed. If a being can change the future, it cannot be known. Omnipotence and omniscience are therefore mutually exclusive.

>>3725188

Not impossible at all.

It's science's job to define the physical world, it's religion's job to define the spiritual world. As long science doesn't try to define the spiritual world and religion doesn't try to define the physical world, there should be no problem.

>>3725208
You're not an Atheist if you don't know.
Can you answer the question please?

>>3725157

>>Pragmatism is the modern philosophy of science.

So the philosophy of science has been completely thrown out the window? If so, how does science decide truth? Or do you mean to imply that things are only 'science' when they comply to your materialist-atheist view point?

Also why did you delete your post? It was perfectly well composed in it's first incarnation.

>>3725227

Omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible, like 'make a square circle', or 'bake a red decade'. Things like this are examples of meaningless statements.
The statement 'God create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it' is equally meaningless.
Part of the definition of God, due to his omnipotence, is that there is no possible physical thing that he could not lift. If we take this as true, then by logical equivalence, part of the definition of every possible physical object is that it is liftable by God. Therefore, 'a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it' is like 'a square circle', it's just a meaningless, self-contradictory idea.

>inb4 Theist

>>3725233
lol this guy does not know what english words mean.

>>3725233

I'm an agnostic times 1000. I only believe in what my own eyes have seen, and allow a certain level of interpretation based upon my logic.

I've never seen a god, and believe that the universe could have come into existence without one.

I never claimed that God's existence was impossible, just that I lack direct experience of him/her/it, and thus choose not to make a claim about it.

I describe myself as an atheist because I live under the assumption that gods don't exist.

>>3725235
'Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.' -Richard Feynman

A philosophy of science was thrown out the window and replaced with a new one, but it is only philosophers that concern themselves with this, not scientists. Science as a method is not as set in stone as people think. The only basic tenant it has is that the truth of propositions must be tested against observation. Scientists rarely concern themselves with the details of this process, that is for philosophers.

>>3725244

If God is omnibenevolent, then it is clearly logical to occasionally change the future. Hurricane Katrina is a pretty decent example.

Saying the ability to change the future is an illogical ability to have is, well, stupid. It's a very good ability to have if you turn a race of hairless apes with free will loose to do as they will with your creation. Imagine some nutjob blowing up a couple buildings by flying planes into them or something. If there were any important people there, it'd be nice and very prudent to be able to get them out of harm's way. The example isn't the best, but it's widely known.

In short, your argument against "making a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it" is invalid in this case, and were I less charitable I would assume it was a strawman.

>>3725227
>If a future can be known, it cannot be changed. If a being can change the future, it cannot be known. Omnipotence and omniscience are therefore mutually exclusive.

How narrow minded. God is in control. How hard was that?

>>3725057


Religion and science can never exist in harmony

Yes it can.

I believe in God.

I do science.

No problem.

The problem is the way we treat it I.E: Creationism vs. Evolution.

>>3725154

"above science"

read "impossible"

>>3725286

Extremely hard. Your statement does not even come close to addressing either of the foundational points of what I said.

>>3725291

Major religions have creationism as a foundation. Take that away from them and they are exposed as irrelevant by their own standards. (ie for christfags, without adam and eve, there's no original sin, no reason for hell, and they're holy book is incorrect)

>>3725248
Maybe you can't read. Troll harder

>>3725259
>I'm an agnostic times 1000. I only believe in what my own eyes have seen, and allow a certain level of interpretation based upon my logic.
Are you an Agnostic or an Atheist
Everyone I ask has no idea anymore. What is this world coming to?

>I've never seen a god, and believe that the universe could have come into existence without one.
Are you an Atheist or an Agnostic? Simple Question

>I never claimed that God's existence was impossible, just that I lack direct experience of him/her/it, and thus choose not to make a claim about it.
It's not impossible for God to exist? Many Atheists say otherwise.
Which Atheist is right?

>I describe myself as an atheist because I live under the assumption that gods don't exist.
WHICH ONE IS IT?
Are all Atheists really this confused? Contradiction Overload.

ITT:

>>berate scientists for assuming things like "the world will not suddenly, for no reason, change its laws" that have neither happened nor have reason to happen

>>ignore your own advice about assuming things and tell everyone about your invisible friend with magic powers and how he obviously exists and is somehow immune from science, cant be detected but can interact with us. (The last bit is a logical contradiction, but its okay since god is 'above' logic, in that fictional creatures are just concepts that can be shaped in the minds of their creators)

>>3725310
You obviously don;t know what the words "atheist" and "agnostic" mean. Go do some research before posting again for the sake of everyone's intelligence.

>Are all Atheists really this confused?

No, we're not.

>>3725283
>it doesn't make sense because it destroys my argument

Look how mad you are. Just read your comment again

>>3725291
Did you arrive at the conclusion that God exists, through science? If not, there is a fundamental dissonance in your worldview. If one day, science figures out how it all happened, and that God did not create the universe. you will have to abandon one of your beliefs.

>>3725310

He sounds like an agnostic atheist to me. Perfectly rational, it's the skeptic's stance towards all hypothetical entities with no reason or evidence to exist.

The only thing I can find fault with is that it's not really possible to have a truth-value for the existence of god, since the concept is not well-defined. It's like asking for the value of 1/x at x = 0. It can be anything. This is what allows theologians to skirt around their issues - they can just redefine their deities. However, real things cannot be redefined, only concepts can, so their efforts are ultimately futile, a smokescreen.

You can't begin to entertain the idea of something existing until you can define what it is. Even if it's "The thing that's causing that shadow", you've got a position and a shape.

>>3725267

So you've basically saying that science has no obligation to adhere to a central logical premise, yet it's wandering empiricalism trumps every other form of claim? Yet when other forms of truth claim empirical consistency of claims (Such as when Christians claim to experience heaven, or when DMT users claim experience another world), you deny all legitimacy?

Science fights madly to resist changing its sacred notions.

>>3725332

I see. You're just trolling. try >>>/b/

If the foundations of science are so shaky then answer me this?

How the hell has it been so successful?

>>3725200
I am saying that you don't have to make the existence of the objective world into a logical axiom. It is the logical equivalent of a definition, not an axiom. Specifically, the definition of substance.

Take an electron as an example. I don't have to assume that there exists a real thing called an electron, I simply have to agree with my fellow scientists that whenever we each observe a certain group of subjective observations we will call that group an electron. The same method can be applied to all substances or things by defining a substance as a group of observations consistently found together.

The primary reason most people give for needing to assume the existence of an objective world is that without it the laws of nature would be subjective and thus subject to change. By putting that consistency across time in your definition of substance instead, you don't require this axiom.

>>3725344

I think you have sort of but not quite grasped it. Science is based on empiricism. If you want to rubbish science you have to rubbish empiricism.

Now: when you next cross the road, do you really want to shun empiricism? When you decide whether or not to jump off a cliff to see if you can fly?

>>3725283
Why would God need to change the future? Just because he can? How old are you? Do you even know what omniscient means?

>>3725344

You mean when your brain absorbs certain drugs it makes pretty pictures?

You mean that when you feel vaguely happy for no apparent reason?

MUST BE SUPERNATURAL!

>>3725360

I'm 35.

Omniscient, as it is used in the bible, is used to mean God knows all, the past, present, and future.

My point is not that there is a particular point at which God needed to change the future, or when he will need to change the future. The point is that the definitions of the words make them mutually exclusive in the same being. This is the reason that other guy thought the "could God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it" comparison was applicable.

I am not saying that the definition of omnipotence is meaningless, as the heavy rock argument I just mentioned there wrongly implies. I am saying that if the future can be known, it is immutable. If the future is immutable, it renders invalid other attributes the bible claims both God and man to have. Those attributes would be omnipotence on the part of God and free will on the part of man.

The man's free will point is easily dispensed with because it could be argued that God exists outside of time as man understands it, and thus his understanding of events is almost a sort of hindsight. This however does not reconcile the problem of omnipotence and omniscience existing in the same being.

>>3725384

Also, that's enough of this bullshittery for tonight.

>>3725384
>>3725384
Our free will is not affected in the slightest.
How could it be affected? What's stopping you from giving your life to Jesus Christ right now?

Free will exists.

>>3725057
Science doesn't stop magical thinking. Nothing stops magical thinking, because science is not all seeing, all knowing and all powerful.

Good luck with your dogma.

>>3725344
I think you are stringing the ideas of different anons together into a sort of atheist straw man.

I am just saying that scientists are not philosophers. They do not concern themselves with epistemology. They have a method and they use it, right or wrong.

Now, because I did study philosophy and not science (at least as my specialty), I am concerned with the logical consistency of science. I think pragmatism is a logically consistent philosophy that corresponds with the actual practice of science. For that reason I believe in science. Pragmatism also includes a need for measurable results, and since the religious and drug induced experiences you are talking about cannot be measured and thus are not legitimate sources of empirical data (in fact, due to their that they are immeasurable these experiences don't provide empirical data at all).

>>3725384
> exist
> outside of time
pick one

>>3725428
In the beginning, God
-Gensis 1:1

God is not bound by time. You equate God to a human being by doing so.

>>3725460
> The beginning.
A time.
> in it
God.

>>3725473
>in the beginning
>God

God predates the beginning.

>>3725460
Talk about quoting out of context.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No comma, bud.

>>3725499
it makes no difference.
Is english your second language?

>>3725499
It should say before the begininng.

While religion and science cannot occupy the same space that doesn't mean both cannot exist separately. Positivist separatism would easily solve this conundrum, a territory for people who subscribe to the scientific method opposed to beliefs. However I would urge to have very stringent citizenship requirements. Saying you believe in evolution should not be enough, one should be able to explain why evolution should be acknowledged as true. And this shouldn't end with evolution either, the big bang, and other basic concepts should be mastered. Also an IQ of at least 115 should be mandatory because anyone below that would not understand the explanations and would probably be just textbook memorization.

inb4 Hurp durp all humans are equal or some bullshit about unification.

If you want a glorious technocratic society you're going to have to leave the untermensch behind. Attempting to get them to tag along would not only burden this transcendence but derail the process entirely due to their inferior cerebrums.

>Religion and science can never exist in harmony
Define harmony. Ying and yang/ good and bad. Contradictions are sometimes needed for "harmony".

>in religion there is a set belief system that you start out with, and observations are molded and changed to fit that belief system
Not exactly. Religion started with observations. They observed what happened around them, and decided to say why the think it happened. Once they came up with a possible (not contraindicating anything else they have come up with) solution they decide it is correct. So, observation then theory then accepted. Once accepted new things have to work with it. In other words, older theory is greater than new theory.
Science has the axiom that the scientific method is correct. It basis everything off the scientific method. In other words, the scientific method is a scientist belief. They observe, theories, test, observe, conclude, repeat and retest until accepted. If contradicting evidence is put forward, retest again, modify theory, retest, then accept, throw away, or keep retesting.