Hello,

I am a noob to site and so a little about myself.  I do believe in God, however, I do not believe in organized or doctrine based religion.  Basically, I do not do religion.  I am a Physics major with a bit of experience in Philosophy and have dabbled in the study of world religions.

I have some questions regarding the assertion of science results as the ultimate truth of existence and reality.  From what I understand, regarding our relative common knowledge, we as humans only have the ability to use our 5 senses to partake in the observing component of the scientific method.  From what I have come to understand we as humans also have the ability to have any one or multiple senses fooled at any time.  Do not these two observations necessitate that by definition the results obtained from the scientific method are actually relative and not ultimate truths?  (Obviously necessary truths are involved in the scientific method but are not necessary, nor relevant to my point, as I am dealing with the limit of the ascription of scientific results to a given truth classification.)  In addition, if the answer to the aforementioned question is "yes", then does it not also logically follow that science can never tell you anything about ultimate reality?  At best lending only a rendering of probabilities and possibilities in an attempt to understand that which exists and is only perceivable to our senses (relative yet again).

It seems to me that as a result of the above perspective, the validity of proving or disproving the existence of an entity of supreme or godlike qualities (ultimate truth) using science can not exist.  Therefore the claim that the act of scientists compartmentalizing their logic is an illogical act (per Kelly during end of debate), is also not valid. It only stands to reason that if science cannot tell you anything about ultimate reality then the use of it for the purpose of determining ultimate truths is nothing more than the practice of believing that scientific results are giving you the picture of ultimate reality (you know kinda like the religions claim to give people the picture of ultimate reality).  I mean hell, we have enough problems just trying to get science to explain our own relative experiences (the reason scientific results are so dynamic).

As a scientist, my perspective is this:  Science is great for helping us to understand the things that we appear to have in common when it comes to sense experience.  One of the things that science as well as simple observation has given us is that boundaries in all facets of life appear to exist.  Does it not also make sense that in and effort to gain a more balanced and fuller understanding of our existence we also have boundaries in our thought processes for our different experiences with our existence.  So... to sum, in my opinion scientific studies and spirituality (the act of coming into touch with the ultimate truth of existence) are two totally different creatures with necessary logical boundaries.   Without these boundaries, the scientific studies turn into nothing more than some other belief system like religion attempting to come into the knowledge of the ultimate truth.

One more point, I did find that the use of judgemental words during the debate like "stupid" and "ignorant" reduced the debate to nothing more than two religions moraly bashing each other.  I find nothing benneficial regarding morality, or rationality by acting judgemental.  Sticking to the facts keeps the point on the top of peoples heads, acting in condescending fashions only serves to close ears.  Rational no??

Let's say I claim to have created the perfect refrigerator. Of course, this claim does not go unnoticed and someone challenges me to prove my refrigerator is indeed perfect. So, I deliver one of my "perfect" refrigerators to this sceptic and he goes about testing it. What he finds is that my refrigerator doesn't actual cool things at all. In fact, it actually keeps things warm. However, to my skeptics surprise, my refrigerator actually transfers every milliwatt of power to the items it contains as heat. No energy is lost in the process. As such, it could be said that my refrigerator is a perfect heating device.

Now, if you said that my refrigerator does what it does perfectly, then I would agree. However, that's not what refrigerators are supposed to do. They are supposed to cool things. Does this somehow mean my refrigerator is perfect?

There is no evidence that the universe is supposed to form or test free will beings. In fact, there is no evidence that the universe was intentionally designed to specifically do anything at all. Nor is there any evidence that it does the things that it happens do to perfectly since we don't have any other universes to compare it to.

It might be the case that my refrigerator emits some kind of pollution or causes food items it heats to become toxic. Or someone could always come up with a smaller heating device that is just as efficient or emits less noise as mine. Perhaps, someone could come up with a device that doesn't use any energy at all. As such, these devices could heat items in a different, yet better way and would become the standard for perfection.

Your annalogy doesnt really work with the universe as we have no other universe in which to compare it to as you said.

From my perception using human reasoning and knowledge I can say the universe is perfect for lots of things.

 The Universe is perfect for forming matter.

It is not really debatable wether or not the universe does this, it is scientifically proven.

And matter does not have a better or worst kind.

 Matter is Matter.

so it is indeed perfect for fomring matter.

But you claim that my entire system for identifying and selecting good and evil was given to me by God. I did not create it myself. As such, my ability to identify and select good and evil would be solely based on the faculties God gave me. Either these faculties correctly identify and select good over evil or they do not. There is no in between.

You do create your own system, you choose what to think about, you choose what actions to commit, god knew what you would do, yet you still do them willfully in your own knowledge, prove it to yourself watch.

Pick up a pen, and make a willfull decision which way to point it.

 Is God forcing you to point it in any certain direction? Or can you make yer own decision which way to point the pen?

Same goes for moral issues, you havea con-science you use it doint you?

You use your con-science to make decisions that are not forced upon you by God, he might have made the situation that you are in, but you use your own judgement to do right or wrong as it is based in your mind.

If you say that the faculties God gave us were designed to only work correctly in some cases, then that's exactly what will happen. But I fail to see how God can pass judgement in these cases because that's exactly what God designed it to do. The fact that I might know I'm choosing evil over good would be irrelevant as that too must be part of the design. If it's not, then God did not design and create me down to the last detail.

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.

In other words, If God and God alone deserves the glory for everything, then God and God alone bears responsibility for everything. You can't have it both ways.

You are responsible for your decisions as based in the morality you create within the matrix of this world.

Ill finish the rest up later, its late and im tired.

Peace.

Yes.

But the Shame that you Create shall come back upon you, not go to God.

Thesist wrote:

God designed you to be like him, to know good and evil, and to willfully choose one or the other.

The Almighty Theos Knew what he was Doing.

What's up with the overzealous use of the shift button? So you figured out where it is, but that's no reason for wearing it out like that.

And if receiving mercy is our goal in this scenario, can we assume that Theos is motivated in a similar way? Is Theos getting the same payback as we are? I wonder who gives Theos mercy and then who gives this entity mercy...

Why does this yarn sound familiar?

No wait, what if mercy, like any manifestation of a theos, is our creation after all? Why, well, gee, the act of mercy could be quantified in human terms for humanity's sake. It could be understood within the context of us.

No, it couldn't be that simple. It has to come from somewhere out there and we are so awful and imperfect and lustful and have ugly genitalia that we couldn't have come up with this idea on our own.

Ho hum.

Please tell me that the fate of modern theology has more to offer than this bile. At least put up a fight before you go. Hell, a marginally significant temper tantrum is better fodder than this tripe.

Cheers!

{edit color} 

I understand where you are going with this Veils, and I think your point is a fair one. All the same would claim further that it is not a good idea to give Theist this equivocation in the first place.

The notion of perfection implies not only the creation of both the good and bad examples in the universe (if those are in fact the right words), but it also implies efficiency, economics in time and material, reproductive benefit, and a whole lot of other things that I am sure we could add to the mix. Forgive me for not naming the person who brought this up a few pages back, but I think it was said well. To imply perfection within the universe, one needs more universes for comparative purposes to establish that perfection, and even then the sample might not be large enough to make that claim. Just think of the sample size of data necessary to determine at what temperature different species of frogs perish or in determining why some mammals need to care for their young for long periods of time while others are self reliant very quickly. There are I am sure better examples I could cite. That complexity of knowledge, which itself may not even reach perfection status, requires a great deal of data. Why shouldn’t this be the case for a universe with exponentially more complex systems than either of these two examples? The statement by Theist is as bankrupt as it is presumptuous, which is, well, par for the course.

Theist, as usual, says he knows enough to know, but like all his catcalls he has zero foundation in these claims. The only rational comment he can make on the universe given what we all know is that the universe displays a capacity for:

forming matter.

You know, even that seems a stretch. What if the matter already existed? Then it would be more a question of containing matter than creating it. And if that is true then a jar is perfect for containing matter if we wish to apply Theists thinking.

He cannot know in any way that the system of the universe we observe in isolation is in fact perfect. It is what it is based on what we know. Perfection shouldn’t be asserted by either side, unless of course a new definition of perfect is being used and explained at the forefront, something I see Theist avoiding like the plague.

Cheers!

{edit color}

Hmmm??? I understand your point, but I’m a bit tied up with the application of perfection for something that could be more a question of context. Let me explain my definition a bit more to see if we can’t get some mileage out of this side point.

Let’s say for instance that the perfect murder 1906 is committed and deemed perfect because the person who left “no evidence” in this case did so at a time when DNA testing was not available. The perfect crime then is really not perfect because it becomes solvable within another context some 95 years later. In the same way, our perfect murder 2007 might appear so until such a time that evidence (and the leaving of it) is viewed based on whatever techniques become available later on or in another city or another country.

This is why I would argue that perfect anything requires a great number of samples to be able to be considered validly perfect. The samples might need to be seen over large periods of time space or cultures, but these samples are still necessary.

If I am honest about this, though, I guess I’d have to say I have a bias against actually applying perfection to anything tangible in our known world and universe. In my opinion it’s a hitching post that we can strive for in a sense, but it is never anything we can label as achieved or attained. I accept that we use the word commonly for things that work really well: “That was a perfect pass by Jenkins.” But then I also note that it can get cluttered up with misnomers if we try to apply it to things like a tomato or a universe. I’m willing to cautiously accept terms like “perfect” with things like the rows of a shark’s teeth. The real meaning is actually “well suited for.” But I can’t for the life of me see how anything human made can ever be considered perfect, and I think humans are even more out of bounds in saying that a universe for instance—which appears very undersigned—could be called perfect in that same sense.

Given what you’ve said in your post above, it seems we would agree on the reasons why this is the case. Our only disagreement comes from how strongly to apply our respective notions of perfection to our own context as human beings.

Thanks for taking a banal point from Theist and making it interesting by the way.

Cheers! {edit color}

In response to Dadvocate.

Recieveing mercy is not the Goal in the Scenario, the Goal in the Scanario is obtaining Salvation which is Personal Knowledge of the Truth of Life.

Mercy is an Abstract Idea, in Chrisitanity Joshua is the Living Image of the Mercy of Theos.

Where did Mercy Come From? It is an Act Commited by Sentient Beings, it was not "Created", it is Given and Recieved and Comes from within sentient Beings.

Mercy is understood in any Context between two Beings where One has Power over the Other.

Wow, were you serious when you said that about human beings? I think you better stick to describing yourself Dadvocate because what you say about humans being "Ugly", "Full of Lust", and "Imperfect". Your view of us is quite fucked, your philosophy is horrible and you need to lighten up, maybe you should allow the Light of Theos to Permeate your Human Flesh so you can see the Truth of Human Life, Enter the Light of the Logos.

It is a neccesity that Those things exist in your mind, but of course they are existing by those who revel in such things, and have disregard for the Truth of this Universe, your view is the View of Backbiting and Prideful People.

The Fate of Modern Theology? Who cares about Modern Theology? Truthful Salvation Through Knowledge is the Sought after Goal of This Life and with your Attitude, you shall Nevar Recieve it.

Cheers to you my Brother.

I hope you come to the Truth, But if Not, I hope you can at least live with your "Disgusting Genatalie"

I quite love all the Universe, including our "Disgusting Genetalia"

I think you are a Weirdo of Sorts, something Becoming all to common.

In Love Brotha!

Cheers!

Using my own perception and knowledge, I can say that the universe is perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators.

Indeed it is, Without them how would I know how Truly Great Theos was, like I Said it is a nessacity that Those Things exist, I Thank God for Them as it is what Shows his True Greatness.

It's not debatable as if the universe actually does this since we know that a small number mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators really do exist.

 Indeed this is True, I do not Disagree, are you not Happy that you are not One of them? Thank the Almighty Theos.

So, the universe is indeed perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators.

Indeed, you are Correct.

Since you claim that the mere fact that any happens in the universe proves that it's designed by God to happen, then God must have designed the universe to be perfect for creating a small number of mass murders, pedophiles and violent dictators. Right?

Indeed, he Did, and I am Grateful that he did such things, It is the Way of Truth, Thank the Almighty for his Awesome Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, for without it, how could we understand the Good?

Of course, God couldn't possibly be responsible for making this decision. 

Oh, he is surely Responisble.

Much Love Brother. 

It just is not right for you to equate your knowledge of the universe with mine, nor My knowledge of the Universe with yours, they are very differant.

You have Perceptual, Sensical Knowlegde and So do I.

 I have Inner Being Knowledge, alot of it, you apparantly have Zilch.

 How do those Blinders Feel?

In Love Brother. 

Perceiving something in your mind doesn't make it true. Otherwise, this world would be scary as hell due to all of the people who do acid.

im·ag·i·na·tion      /ɪˌmædʒəˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-maj-uh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

Ooh! #6 is a good one! #4 is pretty good, too! 

I see what you Say Skull Man.

Do you not See in the Argument of the Oh most Highest of Wisdom of Socrates?

That Men only Can Judge that Which is True, that Both at the Same Time, They Can Make False Judgement?

Do you see This Most Reverent Precept? 

I see the concept. I just think it is you who is making the false judgment.

And you, of course, think it is me. We have now established that we disagree on something. 

We all make abstractions out of the universe. If we did not, it would be extremely difficult to switch between different models of cars or do our jobs.

 Abstractions are a mechanism we use to categorize and conceptualize the physical universe.  They are one of many ways we can slice and dice reality into convenient ideas that help us navigate and manage our world.

However, I realize these abstractions are limited in their context and value. They are simply one of many ways of looking at things. Most importantly, they do not represent an absolute truth that has value in all contexts.

 So Time is not an Absolute Truth and Abstracting it Is not Scientific? Also Measurement of anything is Not Real? Abstraction of Measurement is Very Real, or should we just Say that Abstraction of Measrurement is a Figment of Our Imangination? Is Abstraction Real then Maya?

You, on the other hand, claim that you perceive God in the abstraction of our universe, that he really exists, and that he is the answer to everything and anything. You also claim this is the only true way of looking at things.

The Only way of Looking at Things is The True and Right Way, And This is Through Theos, The Eternal Ether, The Flowing Truth, The Spirit of God. 

Abstractions are Thought Substance and It is Completely Real, The Truth is the Ether that Thought Flows Through and is The Essence of God. 

  I do not Claim to Percieve God, I Percieve God, in the Eternal Essence of All Things.

What is it that you Claim to Percieve? or do you Percieve Nothing? 

All models of cars are different. They have pedals, levers and controls of different sizes in various locations. They are constructed out of different materials with different manufacturing techniques. Yet, when you look at all of these models, you recognize them as a car.

However, this abstraction does not really exist. There is no one abstract "car" that you can touch or see. However, without this abstraction, it would be difficult to drive a rental car or trade in your current vehicle for the latest model.

Just as important, the concept of a car has a limited value. Just because something looks like a car, doesn't mean you can actually drive it. Nor does it mean all cars have the same quality or safety ratings. The concept of "safety" is something completely different. Also, the concept of a "car" tells us nothing about other things like the weather, what stocks to invest in or who we should date or marry. It's usefulness is limited to a particular context.

Ok, So you do not belive in the Abstract Model of The Car.

 Does the Abstract Form of The Circle Exist?

Does The Abstract Form of a Square Exist?

Does the Abstract Form of a Sphere Exist?

Strange because thay are Imbedded into the Universe, yet they do not Exist, According to you Maya? 

You've abstracted God from the universe and claim that...

- You have knowledge of God
- I do not have knowledge of God because I'm simply not looking for it in the right place
- God really exists, even though you have no concrete evidence to back up your claim
- God created everything, is all powerful, all knowing and perfect. Therefor, your concept of  God has value in all contexts and is always correct, regardless of how imperfect it seems.

Indeed, The Annointing is Wonderful. 

Is the Concrete Evidence of the Pyramids Evidence that the Egyptians Existed?

Wait, that must have been a Random Geological Formation?

Must be.

Wait you will Say, but we Have Other Evidence, Writings, Artifacts, Things of This Nature.

I am in possession of a Divine Artifact, Its Called a State of Being and I Possess One, It is Quite Nice, I Also Abstract The Eternal Essence From The Code Within The Divine/Natural Order, It is Quite Glorious.

I spent alot of Time polishing it off and Excavating it, Removing the Impurities From it and Cleaning it So I could get a Good Look at the Artifact, Boy, You should Dust yours Off and Examine it Sometime, maybe then you Can Make a Deduction on its Origin?

I have Found the Origin To be The Most Ancient and Uncreated Essence, It is In The Same State as my Eternal and Wonderful Theos.

Now that I have Discovered Immortality, What do I have to Worry About? Cept the Day when I shall Remove the Body and Become Like my Father.

Oh it Shall be Glorious. 

You only Punish Yourself, The Flaming Fire is a Spirit of Theos that Will Cleanse your Soul of Impurities, Do what you Will, Your Punishment is your Own, Only Your Own Deeds Will come back upon you, as is Taught by the Religion of The Earth, In the Sacred Writings of The Modern and The Ancient.

So what does it Say about Our Needs Maya, I would be Much Enthralled to hear what you Say our Needs are and How they Relate to the God of The Universe.

In other words, if people are perceiving God, then this perception represents something that they feel is important to them, but I don't think it means that God really exists or that we should live our lives by what other perceive as his will.

Wait, So they Percieve Something that is Important to Them, but it Does not Exist? Where did they Get this "Importance" of This "Thing" That Has Nevar Existed?

Seems Impossible To Find Something to Be Important, but it Has Nevar Existed? 

Where Does the Idea of God Come From So To Speak?  In your Mind? 

I think the concept of God is a convenient way that some people use to try and make sense of the world. Just like the concept of a car is a convenient way of looking at the many different makes and models of automobiles that exist.

So The Concept of The Circle is Just a Convenient Way for Us to Percieve the Universe, But Circles and Spheres Do not Really Exist? 

So the World is not a Sphere?

And when I think of a Sphere in my Mind, Theires Really No Such Thing as a Sphere? 

Is it Possible to Know or to See or To Percieve that which is not Seeable, or Knowable, or Percievable?

Yes. See above.

So what your Saying is that The Thing Being Percieved Does not Exist, but the Perception of the Thing Does Exist?

So Perception Can Exist Without Something that is being Percieved?

So I can Percieve Something That is Nothing?

So things that Do not Exist Can be Percieved? 

Actually That Sounds Quite Absurd.

What Exactly Am I Perceiving then When I am Looking At The Almighty Theos in His Boundless Sphere of Eternal Essence? 

Peace Dude. 

Measurement is abstract in the sense that there are different rules of measure. For example, you might measure things in pounds or you might measure things in grams. Both are units of measure, both measure weight, and both are real; however, they operate in different-sized units. The abstraction here lies in the fact that measurement is real, but the units of measurement are arbitrary.

Similarly, to go back to the car example, we know that cars are real, but the form (model) of a car is arbitrary.

Therefore, when you simply say "measurement" or you simply say "car" you are using an abstraction.

The existence of abstractions is not indicative of a god in any way. You're simply applying god to the abstract so that you can't be cornered by people who ask you to define him in a concrete way.

Atheists perceive all kinds of things. They just don't perceive a god anywhere.

Just need to make a clarification here.

The point isn't that abstraction itself doesn't exist or that we can't conceive of an abstraction that stands for cars in general. When you say the word "car", I form an abstraction in my mind that symbolizes what makes up a car. When I hear the word, my mind immediately assembles all of the things that it knows can be attributed to "car". However, even though it's possible to perceive such an abstraction, it is impossible to  have such an abstraction actually exist. The abstraction I form in my mind is not a mental picture of any real, particular car. It stands for all possible aspects of cars and no particular car while excluding all aspects that do not involved cars, and it does this all simultaneously and ambiguously in a way that I understand. However, this abstraction cannot exist in physical reality.