[bostjan]

Sorry to speak frankly, but there is very little logical about god.  He is argued to be every opposing extreme in monotheistic religion as well as pantheistic religions, which cover most modern religions.  I never intended to say that science and logic are the same.  They are tools, which together help us understand nature.  Science without logic existed in early greek and egyptian history.  Logic exists without science.

Solipsism is essentially the philosophical scepticism of science.  I'm taking much liberty to paraphrase it as such, but the belief that what we measure and observe is not to be trusted is the same to me.

The extremism of infinity is absolutely different from how i mean the term to describe a philosophy or rhetoric.  Perhaps 'radical' would be a more fitting term.  The way it claims that we cannot claim anything about the outside world is taking a simple fact that observations are tainted by the observer- to the maximum tangible level.

Ok, back to the logical issues with debating god- a logical implication A implies B may be true if A is false or if both A and B are true - and if the truth of A actually tells you about the truth of B, yet in theological arguments, people often try to use this to prove B, which is unprovable by use of A that is simply true but has nothing to do with B.  I.E.- Look at how beautiful a butterfly is!  The beauty of the butterfly must mean there is a god!  or  The bullet just barely missed me so there must be a god!

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
Sorry to speak frankly, but there is very little logical about god.  He is argued to be every opposing extreme in monotheistic religion as well as pantheistic religions, which cover most modern religions.

Most people who speak of God are not logicians, and do not attempt to create a logically cohesive view of God.  This does not mean it is not possible to create a logically cohesive philosophy that includes the notion of a God (this does not make the philosophy scientific, but it can nonetheless be logically cohesive).

quote:
Solipsism is essentially the philosophical scepticism of science.  I'm taking much liberty to paraphrase it as such, but the belief that what we measure and observe is not to be trusted is the same to me.
The extremism of infinity is absolutely different from how i mean the term to describe a philosophy or rhetoric.  Perhaps 'radical' would be a more fitting term.  The way it claims that we cannot claim anything about the outside world is taking a simple fact that observations are tainted by the observer- to the maximum tangible level.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't see how it invalidates that extreme.

quote:
Ok, back to the logical issues with debating god- a logical implication A implies B may be true if A is false or if both A and B are true - and if the truth of A actually tells you about the truth of B, yet in theological arguments, people often try to use this to prove B, which is unprovable by use of A that is simply true but has nothing to do with B.  I.E.- Look at how beautiful a butterfly is!  The beauty of the butterfly must mean there is a god!  or  The bullet just barely missed me so there must be a god!

But, again, you are arguing that because some people (even many people) abuse logic in trying to create a view of God, that therefore there cannot be a logical model that includes the concept of God.

George

[bostjan]

I have yet to see one logical explanation that even comes close to proving the existance of any spirit (non-material) being.  If you define god as 'the supreme being who was creator of the universe and is now ruler of the universe,' then there are plenty of things, in the abstract sence, which would possibly fit the definition, such as gravity, energy, or time, but to say there is some personified creature that rules the universe is really non sequitor, as far as I'm concerned.  It just doesn't make any sense.  Why does there have to be someone ruling the universe?  What exactly do they do to execute this rule?  What exactly does the existance of this person explain?

There does not have to be.  The rules of nature govern the behaviour of the universe.  Nothing.  The existance of god does not explain anything.  As a scientist, I have no interest in theories that raise more unanswerable questions and explain nothing observable.  If I was a philosopher, I would probably be intrigued…

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
I have yet to see one logical explanation that even comes close to proving the existance of any spirit (non-material) being.

I think you missed what I said.  The issue of proof is another matter.  What I said is that one can develop a logically consistent system that includes a God – this is not to say that in any scientific sense one can 'prove' the existence of God.

I have always said one cannot have a scientific system that includes God.  I am not sure whether one can regard anything that is counter-scientific as provable, in that most people here would regard 'proof' as being something scientific.

quote:
but to say there is some personified creature that rules the universe is really non sequitor, as far as I'm concerned.  It just doesn't make any sense.  Why does there have to be someone ruling the universe?  What exactly do they do to execute this rule?  What exactly does the existance of this person explain?

There does not have to be.  The rules of nature govern the behaviour of the universe.  Nothing.  The existance of god does not explain anything.  As a scientist, I have no interest in theories that raise more unanswerable questions and explain nothing observable.  If I was a philosopher, I would probably be intrigued…

Science deals with certain questions, but only those questions.

There are generally regarded as 5 types of question – who, where, why, what, and how.  Science deals with what and how, and not much else.  For a scientist, or an engineer, this is enough; but it is hopelessly inadequate to a judicial system.  The judicial system is primarily concerned with who; and how, or why, is only needed insofar as it helps show 'who' is responsible, but beyond that, 'how' is not pertinent to the judicial system, and 'why' is only slightly pertinent.  Thus, while science has dismissed the notion of God, since nothing in the concept of religion has much relevance to 'how'; but the judicial system retained the notion of an 'act of God', because that explains 'who', but it does so at the expense of ignoring the 'how' – but as I said, the judiciary is not that concerned with 'how'.

Again, as you say, the anthropomorphism surrounding the notion of God is arbitrary, but again, since the notion of God does not try to explain 'how', or even 'what'; thus it is rather arbitrary what God may or may not be.

I know that the above is inherently unscientific, because science can never ignore 'how'; but I always said that God can never fit into the scientific model.  All I said is that there are models where God can perform a valid logical function.

George

[tony6789 (OP)]

this topic is still going?! jeez

NEVER! underestimate youth

[bostjan]

I always thought engineers were curious about how things worked and physicists in why they worked, but this is immaterial.

What logical model relies on the existance of god?

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by roarer
I tell you...I ONLY use the words "soul mode" and "body mode" NOT  because I am religious..but because there are NO other words I can think of to distinguish between the two. I suppose I can define those "states"..is that the right word?.....like "death"...and "life"..or something similiar. But I bet that even if I used these words....they would be challenged.
Now to the defintion of death. What does medical science define the state where the heart stops and the brain is starved of oxygen..if it is NOT death? Is there a medical or scientific definition of this and if so what is it called?

OK, let us get back to a more mechanistic, and less semantic, view of this.

The human being is essentially composed of information – the information within the DNA, and the information within the brain.

In theory, the DNA can survive in a dormant state for quite long periods of time (although not for eternity).  Whether a person reconstructed from dormant DNA is still the same person is debatable, and comes down to the question whether two identical twins are really two people or one person (in normal usage they would be regarded as two separate people, and thus it implies that the reconstruction of a human being from dormant DNA does not amount to the reconstruction of the same person, but of a clone that, while sharing the same DNA, is a separate life to the person who may have 'died').

That leaves the information within the brain.  Clearly, like the DNA, so too, information will (at least partially) remain in the brain even as the brain is starved of the means to live.  The functioning of the brain is the ability to process the information; just as the functioning of the cells of the body is to process the information stored in the DNA

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
I always thought engineers were curious about how things worked and physicists in why they worked, but this is immaterial.

Engineers are concerned how to make things work, while physicists are concerned with how things do work.  Neither are concerned with why (i.e. the purpose for) the universe is as it is.  In fact, scientists and engineers are equally disdainful of the very notion of asking 'why').

quote:
What logical model relies on the existance of god?

There are two different aspects of this.

As I indicated above, while the question of 'relies' may be extreme (on can always find other ways of expressing it), but the judicial system finds the notion 'act of God' to be useful within its model.

But, as has been indicated often enough here, 'God' is simply a word, and the difficulty is to associate a precise meaning to it.

One can use the word to define a range of ideas, or equally, if the word is out of favour, one can use a different word to associate with an idea that might previously have been considered as God.  There are many examples of the substantially same idea being rehabilitated by use of a different name because the old name has become socially unacceptable.

As I said, in my view, the main value of the notion of God is to answer the question 'who?' to things that were not the creation or responsibility of humans.  It is a little like when mathematician asks about the square roots of numbers that are not real positive numbers, so they create the notion of 'imaginary numbers', numbers that can have no physical existence, but are useful to answer a question that can be asked, but cannot otherwise be answered.

Ofcourse, where one can say the problems start is when one applies arbitrary attributes to the notion of God that go beyond it's simple purpose.  When one starts trying to imagine physical manifestations of this metaphysical idea (e.g. imagining a human 'son of God'), then it does somewhat stretch the plausibility of the idea.

George

[bostjan]

'Act of God' is a phrase with no pure logical motives.

I don't see how we can be in disagreement as to how a word with no specified meaning has anything to do with logic.  Logic is cut and dried.

Logic: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning," "something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason"

See my point?  From what do you infer or demonstrate the existance of god?  Notice the word 'science in the dictionary definition of 'logic?'

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
'Act of God' is a phrase with no pure logical motives.

Ofcourse it has a logical meaning.

The role of the judiciary is to attribute blame for a particular misadventure.  If that blame cannot be attributed to any human entity, then it needs some target for that blame, and God is a useful target to attribute blame (or responsibility) for that which cannot be attributed to a human.  In that context, God becomes a generic abstract substitute for a human.

quote:
I don't see how we can be in disagreement as to how a word with no specified meaning has anything to do with logic.  Logic is cut and dried.

Logic: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning," "something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason"

See my point?  From what do you infer or demonstrate the existance of god?  Notice the word 'science in the dictionary definition of 'logic?'

If you are willing also to accept theology as a science, then maybe so; but it is certainly not a science in the way that I had intended to use the word (i.e. as a study of the physical environment as we perceive it).  Logic is the study of the abstract, not of the physical; hence why I distinguished it from science.  I would accept that logic is a branch of mathematics (or at least that formal logic is such), but while mathematics is a necessary tool of science, I would not regard mathematics to be a component of science in and of itself (although we have have here another issue about whether 'a science' may be different from 'science').

George

[bostjan]

Mathematics is a branch of science as much as chemistry is.  Physics is also a tool used in chemistry, does that make it not a branch of science?

BTW, physics is the study of the physical environment as we percieve it.  Science is merely the study of the nature of things, including life (biology), the earth (geology), chemicals (chemistry), and numbers (mathematics) and much more.

And there is nothing logical about making up a person to put blame onto for a misadventure.  Just read what you said 'generic substitute for human.'  There is no logic in making a wild assumption to make up for circumstances you cannot explain.  Logic would require starting with something and deducing a result with a sound explaination, not just pulling something out of the blue.

Anyway, I do not see 'God' being endicted for any of these judicial decisions.  Does the court get a priest to take a deposition from the Bible to get 'God's' testimony?  Or do they consult a Rabbi about the Torah?  Perhaps an Imam for the Koran, or get all three together and see how much agreement you get.  As I said, there is no pure logical motive behind the phrase 'Act of God,' it's merely a poorly worded phrase with a vague meaning.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
Mathematics is a branch of science as much as chemistry is.  Physics is also a tool used in chemistry, does that make it not a branch of science?

Physics is a different model to chemistry, and although one has the intermediate model of physical chemistry, chemists have long practised chemistry without being concerned by physics.

quote:
BTW, physics is the study of the physical environment as we percieve it.  Science is merely the study of the nature of things, including life (biology), the earth (geology), chemicals (chemistry), and numbers (mathematics) and much more.

Firstly, mathematics is much more than merely the study of numbers.  Number theory is the study of numbers, but there is also set theory, boolean logic, geometry, calculus, and endless other branches of mathematics.

Secondly, mathematics has very little to do with 'things', it is only about ideas and the manipulation of the abstract.  One cannot conceive of experimental mathematics, and one does not seek to verify mathematical theory by observation of the natural world.  Unlike physics, chemistry, or biology; mathematics need only be shown to be internally consistent in order to show correctness, and need not be shown to be consistent with any observation of the external.

As I say, if you are going to regard mathematics as a science, then you should also regard theology as a science (after all, it is an 'ology' – i.e. a branch of knowledge, and if you do not regard correlation with observation as a prerequisite for science, then all knowledge, however far removed from physical observation, must be regarded as equal).

quote:
And there is nothing logical about making up a person to put blame onto for a misadventure.  Just read what you said 'generic substitute for human.'  There is no logic in making a wild assumption to make up for circumstances you cannot explain.  Logic would require starting with something and deducing a result with a sound explaination, not just pulling something out of the blue.

Read what I said.  There is as much logic in inventing a God for situations that cannot be explained otherwise as there is in inventing imaginary numbers for numbers that do not fit into the established order that existed before that invention.

Theoretical science is all about invention of ideas to fill in the gaps in knowledge.  The difference between science and other branches of knowledge is that the theory is then tested against observation (as I said, this is not possible with mathematics, because we do not have observational or experimental branches of mathematics).

No-one can rightly say that string theory and various theories involving 10 or 11 dimensional space are anything but 'wild assumptions' to make up for circumstances that one cannot explain.  At present, they remain wild assumptions until such time as someone can invent an observational experiment that might provide some observational support for these 'wild assumptions'.  That we require these observational experiments is what we regard as 'scientific methodology', and that to me is what distinguishes what I would regard as 'science' from 'mathematics', 'logic', 'philosophy, or 'theology'.

quote:
Anyway, I do not see 'God' being endicted for any of these judicial decisions.  Does the court get a priest to take a deposition from the Bible to get 'God's' testimony?  Or do they consult a Rabbi about the Torah?  Perhaps an Imam for the Koran, or get all three together and see how much agreement you get.  As I said, there is no pure logical motive behind the phrase 'Act of God,' it's merely a poorly worded phrase with a vague meaning.

Historically, papal power was very real.  In historical terms, the courts were answerable to the King, the King (in European terms) was answerable (at least in theory, if not always in practice) to the Pope, who was then in theory answerable to God.  This ofcourse was one of the reasons so many Kings and Princes of Europe so quickly embraced protestantism, because in the protestant model the King was no longer answerable to the Pope.

It is still the case in this country that the Head of State (although one must distinguish between Head of State and source of government) is also the Head of the Church of England, and thus at least nominally (although no longer in reality) the Government does refer to the local church leader, since the nominal source of secular government is also the nominal head of religion.

Certainly, there are laws in Israel that have come about because of consultation within rabbinical authority (the very notion of which day is regarded as the Sabbath, is a secular law that has its origins in religion, and hence the Muslim countries regard Friday as the day of the Sabbath, Israel regards Saturday, and the countries with a Christian history regard Sunday).  The Israeli law of return assumes that people of a Jewish tradition have a right to migrate to Israel where others do not, and while there is debate in Israel about how to define a Jew, there is no question that religious authorities have their part to play in that debate.  In Islamic countries, there is much debate about the role of sharia law.

In all of the above cases, the legal authorities have either referred to religious authorities in order to 'get God's testimony' as you put it.

'Act of God' is by no means a poorly worded phrase, although you may argue that in an increasingly secular society, it is increasingly an anachronistic phrase.

Interestingly, many people still resort to anthropomorphic notions of 'nature' and 'the Environment', as if they were talking about God; so in many ways, the role of God has not really changed, only the name has changed.  When people say something is 'unnatural', it is as if they say it is contrary to God's law (in the world of science, there is no such thing as unnatural, anything that may be observed must be natural, even if it is observed only as an artifice of human endeavour).  When people talk about harming the Environment, or the Environment fighting back at us, these are all anthropomorphic ideas that have no meaning in science.  The very notions of 'good' and 'bad' are in some way religious notions – in science, things merely are as they are, there is no value judgement of 'good' and 'bad'.

George

[bostjan]

I'll keep this short.

First off, Chemists who ignore the laws of physics will never go anywhere, since a reaction is determined by entropy and energy.

Second, imaginary number have a vast logical motive behind them.  They are well defined and their behaviour is completely predictable.  'God,' on the other hand, is poorly defined and is completely unpredictable.

Third, it is easy and plausible to test theories in mathematics.  Simplest example: 2+2=4, take two rocks and throw them in with two more rocks and count how many rocks there are.  There is no such thing in the field of theology.  Certainly, most of the details of string theory have not been tested at all, but it is a very new theory in comparison with theological theories such as Judaism and Christianity.

Last, I appreciate the long explainations, but have to disagree with many points you make.  I fail to see how there is any reasonable ammount of logic involved in any concept of god, and I still have yet to see any logical deduction using god that makes the least ammount of sense.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
First off, Chemists who ignore the laws of physics will never go anywhere, since a reaction is determined by entropy and energy.

This is, strictly speaking, not true.

If you had said that the laws of chemistry must be consistent with the laws of physics, then I would agree with you; but the whole point about chemistry as a separate discipline is that a chemist does not have to carefully calculate the energy of each electron within a hydrogen and chlorine atom in order to work out how the two will react, but rather takes a higher level model that does ignore the low level physics, and simply says that there is a certain amount of energy that is released by a reaction between hydrogen and chlorine.  The chemist uses a different model to the physicist, but since they are both scientists, the two models must be consistent with each other.

quote:
Second, imaginary number have a vast logical motive behind them.  They are well defined and their behaviour is completely predictable.  'God,' on the other hand, is poorly defined and is completely unpredictable.

I do not disagree that God is poorly defined, and more critically, there are many different definitions of God.  What I am saying is that if someone chooses to define God with less ambiguity, then it is quite possible to build a coherent logical model using many possible closely defined concepts of God.

One of the roles of theology is precisely to try and narrow down these ambiguities (just as scientists try and ever more closely narrow down the ambiguities of the observed world).

I accept that in practice, because there is no experimental verification possible with the notion of God, thus religion is substantially polluted with political expediency, but I would also suggest the same is true of Environmentalism.

quote:
Third, it is easy and plausible to test theories in mathematics.  Simplest example: 2+2=4, take two rocks and throw them in with two more rocks and count how many rocks there are.

I would suggest there are many branches of mathematics, such as aspects of set theory, that is anything but easy to prove.  You are confusing mathematics, which is a very broad discipline, with simple arithmetic of real numbers.

In fact, it can be proven that mathematics must be an incomplete discipline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

quote:
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is perhaps the most celebrated result in mathematical logic. It states that

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows:

For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.

The above explains why mathematicians keep expanding the field of mathematics, since if mathematics is to remain consistent, then it must always remain incomplete.

You may, interestingly, argue the exact converse with the notion of God – that anyone who proposes God as part of a theory that is complete, must inevitably have a theory that is inconsistent.  If you want a theory of God that is consistent, then it too must remain incomplete.

Set theory is another theory that seeks completeness, and so has some problems with inconsistency:

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

quote:
Let M be "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of M if and only if A is not an element of A.

Nothing in the system of Frege's Grundgesetze rules out M being a well-defined set. If M contains itself, M is not a member of M according to the definition. If M does not contain itself, then M has to be a member of M, again by the very definition of M. The statements "M is a member of M" and "M is not a member of M" cannot both be true, thus the contradiction

Another interesting logical variation of the Russell paradox is the Grelling-Nelson paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grelling-Nelson_paradox

quote:

Definition

Define the adjectives "autological" and "heterological" as follows:

1. An adjective is autological if and only if it describes itself. For example "short" is autological, since the word "short" is short. "Sophisticated" and "pentasyllabic" are also autological.
2. An adjective is heterological if and only if it does not describe itself. Hence "long" is a heterological word, as is "monosyllabic".

All adjectives, it would seem, must be either autological or heterological, for each adjective either describes itself, or it doesn't. The Grelling-Nelson paradox arises when we consider the adjective "heterological".
To test if the word 'foo' is autological you can ask: Is 'foo' a foo word? If the answer is 'yes', 'foo' is autological. If the answer is 'no', 'foo' is heterological.
Is 'heterological' a heterological word? If the answer is 'yes', 'heterological' is autological (leading to a contradiction). If the answer is 'no', 'heterological' is heterological (again leading to a contradiction).
There is no consistent answer to the question: Is the word "heterological" heterological? On the one hand, if the word "heterological" is heterological, then it does not describe itself. Since the fact of it not describing itself does, in fact, describe it, it is autological, which means it isn't heterological. On the other hand, if the word "heterological" is not heterological, then it must be autological, which means it describes itself, and therefore it must be heterological. Either case leads to the contradiction that the word "heterological" is both heterological and not heterological, which is impossible.

Analysis

The Grelling-Nelson paradox can be translated into Bertrand Russell's famous paradox in the following way: identify each adjective with the set of objects to which that adjective applies. So, for example, the adjective "red" is equated with the set of all red objects. In this way, the adjective "pronounceable" is equated with the set of all pronounceable things, one of which is the word "pronounceable" itself. Thus, an autological word is understood as a set, one of whose elements is the set itself. The question of whether the word "heterological" is heterological becomes the question of whether the set of all sets not containing themselves contains itself as an element.

The only way out of Russell's paradox is by deliberately excluding certain sets, and thus making set theory incomplete.

This question of inconsistency and incompleteness also pertains directly to the issue of any argument against the notion of God.  If the argument against God depends upon the argument that the concept of God is inconsistent with science, then that must assume that science is both consistent and complete.  If science is allowed to be inconsistent, then there can be no contradiction in a concept that is merely inconsistent with science, since science itself is inconsistent.  If science is incomplete, then this allows the concept of God to exist outside of science because of the incompleteness of science.

None of this is to say that one cannot show that a particular concept of God might not be inconsistent with the accepted domain of science, only that one must nonetheless accept that there will always remain certain concepts (and thus certain possible views of God) that while not consistent within science is not contradicted by it.

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
Certainly, most of the details of string theory have not been tested at all, but it is a very new theory in comparison with theological theories such as Judaism and Christianity.

Truth is not about how old or how new a theory is.  Some theories can take centuries to prove, (no reason why others would not take millennia to prove), while others are proven in days.

In any event, I was deliberately not talking about Judaism or Christianity, only about the abstract notion of God.  Actual implementations of religion are as much about politics as about theology, and I was not trying to argue the absolute truth of the Bible (or even any particular part of it) – I was merely trying to say that it is possible to have a logically consistent theological doctrine, even though such a doctrine must exist outside of science (but, as I have said, being outside of science is not a proof of illogicality).

If you are trying to answer the question whether God, in any particular context, is a logical concept or not; then that is a general question that is much wider than whether Judaism or Christianity accurately describes a logically consistent implementation of a God.  You cannot prove the illogicality of the general merely by proving the illogicality of the specific, unless you can first demonstrate that the specific in fact can be mapped completely on to every possible general case.  Are you wishing to try and pove that the Judao/Christian model of a God can in fact be mapped onto every other conceivable model of God?  I have seen no formal attempt to make such a proof.

quote:
Last, I appreciate the long explainations, but have to disagree with many points you make.  I fail to see how there is any reasonable ammount of logic involved in any concept of god, and I still have yet to see any logical deduction using god that makes the least ammount of sense.

Thinking about set theory, I would try and phrase it so:

If God be the set of all things that do not belong to any known set of things.  This ofcourse leads to issues that if something belongs to God, and if God is a known thing, then such a thing cannot belong to the set known as God – hence God cannot be in the set of known things.

This explains why, as our knowledge of the world increases, so the number of things that do not belong to the a set of known things diminishes, but it can never reach zero (except by violating the consistency of science – back to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem).

George

[bostjan]

I'm sorry, but it is true.  Whether you calculate the energy of each electron, which no one does for realistic molecules anyway, mind you, or you measure it with a calorimeter, you are measuring the energy and using thermodynamics, which is a branch of physics.  Even as you use these measurements to predict whether a reaction will go or not, depends on the laws of thermodynamics.  As a double major in chemistry and physics, I could tell you that nearly every branch of chemistry is concerned with the laws of physics.

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I only used the example I did for simplicity.  If I can show one counterexample to the assumption that there are no experimental tests for mathematics, I prove that assumption false.

Claiming to know something in the set of unknown things is, itself, a paradox, so if god is in the set of unknown things, there cannot exist such a thing as theology, as it is the knowledge of an unknown thing.

Surely these are things you cannot disagree with outright.

Mind you, it's nothing against religion, but I stick to the argument that there is little to no logic involved in them.  Explaininig set theory to a person who has taken two courses at the upper undergraduate level in set theory  is going to convince them neither that mathematics is not a science nor that the notion of god is a logically based axiom.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan
Whether you calculate the energy of each electron, which no one does for realistic molecules anyway, mind you, or you measure it with a calorimeter, you are measuring the energy and using thermodynamics, which is a branch of physics.  Even as you use these measurements to predict whether a reaction will go or not, depends on the laws of thermodynamics.  As a double major in chemistry and physics, I could tell you that nearly every branch of chemistry is concerned with the laws of physics.

That the laws of chemistry can be mapped to the laws of physics, I do not argue with; but they are distinct and different laws - otherwise, why waste time and resources having separate subjects – why not just call them both 'physics'?  The reason why they are different subjects is because they present different models, each model having its own virtues.

quote:
Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I only used the example I did for simplicity.  If I can show one counterexample to the assumption that there are no experimental tests for mathematics, I prove that assumption false.

But who has said that “there are no experimental tests for mathematics”?

What you said earlier was “it is easy and plausible to test theories in mathematics”.  I read this to mean that all mathematics is amenable to experimental tests, not merely that some was.  I did not question that some mathematics was amenable to experimental tests, and thus you have not contradicted me by disproving that “there are no experimental tests for mathematics”.

quote:
Claiming to know something in the set of unknown things is, itself, a paradox, so if god is in the set of unknown things, there cannot exist such a thing as theology, as it is the knowledge of an unknown thing.

Surely these are things you cannot disagree with outright.

Knowing about something is not the same as knowing the thing itself.

In any event, I did not require that God belong to set of things that belong to God.

quote:
Explaininig set theory to a person who has taken two courses at the upper undergraduate level in set theory  is going to convince them neither that mathematics is not a science nor that the notion of god is a logically based axiom.

While I accept that I did not know what to level your knowledge of set theory extends to (apparently substantially greater than my own), but then neither was I trying to teach you set theory, merely highlighting certain pertinent aspects of it.  You are totally at liberty to correct any errors I have made, but I hope that my venture into the field was not so deep as to lead me into serious error, merely deep enough to demonstrate my points.

George

[bostjan]

Ah, but this is all I said in the first place, that physics is a powerful tool for chemistry as is mathematics, and that a good chemist relies on models that do not ignore the laws of physics.

One cannot conceive of experimental mathematics, and one does not seek to verify mathematical theory by observation of the natural world.

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement?  Much but certainly not all mathematics has been tested.  Any theory of the natural world based on a mathematical model can be used as an example.  If mathematics was not useful in the natural world for experiment and observation, experimental scientists would be wasting their time to learn mathematics, yet it seems they take great pains to understand as much of the subject as they can.  If it were not for the geometries of Minkowski, we could not have the theories of General Relativity, which have been tested observationally many times and hold very consitent.

I suppose we have reached the point where any argument made by either of us will just be taken by the other to reinforce our own positions, so that we remain divided no matter what points are presented here.  My stance that god concepts have little to do with the branch of science known as logic remains firm, and you are unrelenting in the least to acknowledge this stance.  This is precisely why I included a pre-emptive apology in that statement.

[Mjhavok]

Has anyone purchased Richard Dawkins latest book "The God Delusion". He has also started a website (www.richarddawkins.net) which is the RDF (Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reasoning). Very Interesting book and website. You should check it out if you are interested in the topic of this thread

-Steven

_______________________________________________________

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

-Steven Weinberg

[RMorty]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by Mjhavok
Solipsism is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. If you take solipsisms into account then you can prove nothing.

Solipsism is far from mumbo jumbo, but it is a philosophical issue rather than a scientific one.

Ofcourse, if one takes solipsism into account, one can prove nothing beyond one's own conceptual existence (and technically, one can also argue that everything else also conceptually exists, only one cannot prove the physical existence of anything beyond oneself, and while one may reasonably assume one's own physical existence, one cannot prove anything about the nature of that existence).

You are right that taking solipsism into account highlights the limitations of what may be proven absolutely, and thus highlights that no matter what science one tries to perform, one must make some assumptions.  This does not invalidate science, it merely places some limits on science, and limits upon knowledge in any form.

George

  Well, I have noticed an annoying re-occurence of this word for about the past page or so of this thread. It is being used to shoot holes in peoples scientific knowledge.  BUT here is what I think. Solipsism is only able to be applied to everything as a whole. But reality only goes as far as each and every one of our perceptions of the world through our senses. So if I say we are on a planet moving through space around a big ball of fire we call the sun and you say "prove it.... but you can't because solipsism means that what you see could be bull**** and you are in your own little world that dosent exist at all its just a figment of your imagination"  in response to that I say that it is possible that maybe there is nothing. No sun, no planet no universe BUT! I see it and THAT is what we define as reality.  Solipsism can only be used if you are looking at reality from the outside in.  

  What I am saying is that maybe it isn't what we perceive, as not being real.  Maybe you would need to look at it as reality not being real, but we still have a reality, so therefore the sun and earth are real.

  This response goes all the way back to the original post made that mentioned Solipsism and was shooting holes in somones opinion.

[RMorty]

Something I find sort of funny is the number of different religions, and a lot of them beleive that thier god(s)or the lack thereof, is/are the only god(s).  In that case a lot of people must be wrong! Right?  

  So if only a small group is right does that mean we all go to hell? Even christians that had protestant denominations.  If everyone really thought religion was important they wouldn't get angry with eachother and decide to split off and make thier own modified version of the religion.

Let me use roman catholics as an example.  They were the original christian religion.  After that I beelive it was the Episcopal church that allowed divorce because some king in England wanted a divorce.  After that more protestant religions were made.  In that case does that mean that anyone who isn't a strict roman catholic is going to hell?

  My point being is that it would be silly to say that so many good people are doomed for hell because they dont beleive in the right religion.  Also, there are good people who are athiest etc.  So does that mean that if there is a hell, it will be filled with a ton of cool people who had good morals and led good lives but simply missed a minute detail like confessing thier sins with thier mouth?

  So for all the christians who beleive jews, muslims and homos will all go to hell, guess what! All of the people who beleive in different christian religions better watch out because if God's word is "written in stone" then one group of y'all are right and the rest are screwed eh?

 See, that sounds kinda silly, now dosen't it?

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by RMorty
  What I am saying is that maybe it isn't what we perceive, as not being real.  Maybe you would need to look at it as reality not being real, but we still have a reality, so therefore the sun and earth are real.

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying, or whether it conflicts with anything I have said.

If what you are saying is that we need to define an arbitrary reality as being an arbitrary absolute starting point, I have no problem with this.  All I was trying to say is that you cannot state any reality as being guaranteed to be the only possible reality; but that does not stop you from selecting a reality as something that you choose (out of expediency) as being real (assuming you actually exist []).

You may arbitrarily define a Sun and Moon to be real in order to accord with your perception of them, but this does not mean that you can demonstrate with total certainty that the Sun and Moon are a unique physical reality, only that they provide a pragmatic solution to your perceptions of reality.

George