Most Scientists Believe In God

[anotherlife]

You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

---
Math is a tool used in comparing & correlating variables reflecting reality as we know it. Math/statistics is used in all scientific research, whether physical, bio, or social. It helps to keep science objective, but requires a logical methodology to provide value.

What objectivity is there in religion? The followers of one "authority" all "see" the same "God"?
.

The religious objectivity is a result of the universal laws that define human mind. Same as scientific objectivity. And both religious and scientific objectivities acknowledge the limits and operating characteristics of the mind. So much for objectivity. Even in the sense of scientific repeatability.

What is the statistics of two observers seeing the same thing first, then also when repeated? The average value? Or logic?

---
What are the "universal laws" that define the human mind?
If you have a coherent reply, how do they vary with the "laws" that define non-human minds?

I betcha you're a dualist, a popular view before modern science.
.

I don't really know what category I belong to. My major is maths. But now I think philosophy and social sciences are more interesting, because they are more readily useful to build lies and mass manipulation. Yes, there are universal laws that define human mind. Some of such laws are the exclusive pattern composition, finiteness, and polarity. So, for example, it is not possible for a human to imagine, but it is possible to postulate, that nonhuman minds can exist that are capable of counting with infinity, as an example. In fact, we can play a little Frankenstein as is, and simply write a software, that has just one more state than the number of states in the mind of the smartest human. That software will then appear as another person, with all the human mental functions, to anybody who decides to chat with it. Then you can just delete that software. Will that deletion undo the time spent with It? Even better, was that software a creation of people, or a creation of God? A.k.a., are we back to whether God guides the hand of the artist, or is the artist the creator? And now, logically, since the software was a person, how is it dead? The same way a biological humans can be dead? This points out that the existence of God is an "objective" necessity, in a logical approach, otherwise you don't even have such basic things to work with as time.

 

[MDiver]

A 2009 Pew Research Survey concluded that 51% believed in some form of deity. That is "technically" a majority, but only a 1% majority. I'll stick with the 49%. Religion has been the bane of humanity since it came about. It divides people rather than unites them.

 

[Si modo]

A 2009 Pew Research Survey concluded that 51% believed in some form of deity. That is "technically" a majority, but only a 1% majority. I'll stick with the 49%. Religion has been the bane of humanity since it came about. It divides people rather than unites them.

There's a difference between faith and religion. If we are to take your numbers as correct, those numbers indicate 51% have faith in a deity. It says nothing about religion.

 

[MDiver]

The numbers are correct and it is a faith in some form of deity, not a specific religion.

 

[PK1]

A 2009 Pew Research Survey concluded that 51% believed in some form of deity. That is "technically" a majority, but only a 1% majority. I'll stick with the 49%. Religion has been the bane of humanity since it came about. It divides people rather than unites them.

There's a difference between faith and religion. If we are to take your numbers as correct, those numbers indicate 51% have faith in a deity. It says nothing about religion.

---
Correction:
Those Pew survey results indicate ...
33% of polled scientists believe in a deity labelled as "God".
The other 18% (to get to 51%) believe in a "universal spirit or higher power", whatever that means.
.

 

[PK1]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

 

[PK1]

---
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.

The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.

What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

---
Math is a tool used in comparing & correlating variables reflecting reality as we know it. Math/statistics is used in all scientific research, whether physical, bio, or social. It helps to keep science objective, but requires a logical methodology to provide value.

What objectivity is there in religion? The followers of one "authority" all "see" the same "God"?
.

The religious objectivity is a result of the universal laws that define human mind. Same as scientific objectivity. And both religious and scientific objectivities acknowledge the limits and operating characteristics of the mind. So much for objectivity. Even in the sense of scientific repeatability.

What is the statistics of two observers seeing the same thing first, then also when repeated? The average value? Or logic?

---
What are the "universal laws" that define the human mind?
If you have a coherent reply, how do they vary with the "laws" that define non-human minds?

I betcha you're a dualist, a popular view before modern science.
.

I don't really know what category I belong to. My major is maths. But now I think philosophy and social sciences are more interesting, because they are more readily useful to build lies and mass manipulation. Yes, there are universal laws that define human mind. Some of such laws are the exclusive pattern composition, finiteness, and polarity. So, for example, it is not possible for a human to imagine, but it is possible to postulate, that nonhuman minds can exist that are capable of counting with infinity, as an example. In fact, we can play a little Frankenstein as is, and simply write a software, that has just one more state than the number of states in the mind of the smartest human. That software will then appear as another person, with all the human mental functions, to anybody who decides to chat with it. Then you can just delete that software. Will that deletion undo the time spent with It? Even better, was that software a creation of people, or a creation of God? A.k.a., are we back to whether God guides the hand of the artist, or is the artist the creator? And now, logically, since the software was a person, how is it dead? The same way a biological humans can be dead? This points out that the existence of God is an "objective" necessity, in a logical approach, otherwise you don't even have such basic things to work with as time.

---
You should stick to abstract math ideas, which may be as relevant as supernatural ideas created by your brain activity.
Yes, AI software can be "intelligent" with solving computer-generated problems, but a "mind" it's not.
And NOTHING to do with fantasies of gods or esp a single "God".
.

 

[BreezeWood]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.

how dense can an atheist be ...


no, it's not from a neurological Fauna brain.

.

 

[anotherlife]

Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.

---
Math is a tool used in comparing & correlating variables reflecting reality as we know it. Math/statistics is used in all scientific research, whether physical, bio, or social. It helps to keep science objective, but requires a logical methodology to provide value.

What objectivity is there in religion? The followers of one "authority" all "see" the same "God"?
.

The religious objectivity is a result of the universal laws that define human mind. Same as scientific objectivity. And both religious and scientific objectivities acknowledge the limits and operating characteristics of the mind. So much for objectivity. Even in the sense of scientific repeatability.

What is the statistics of two observers seeing the same thing first, then also when repeated? The average value? Or logic?

---
What are the "universal laws" that define the human mind?
If you have a coherent reply, how do they vary with the "laws" that define non-human minds?

I betcha you're a dualist, a popular view before modern science.
.

I don't really know what category I belong to. My major is maths. But now I think philosophy and social sciences are more interesting, because they are more readily useful to build lies and mass manipulation. Yes, there are universal laws that define human mind. Some of such laws are the exclusive pattern composition, finiteness, and polarity. So, for example, it is not possible for a human to imagine, but it is possible to postulate, that nonhuman minds can exist that are capable of counting with infinity, as an example. In fact, we can play a little Frankenstein as is, and simply write a software, that has just one more state than the number of states in the mind of the smartest human. That software will then appear as another person, with all the human mental functions, to anybody who decides to chat with it. Then you can just delete that software. Will that deletion undo the time spent with It? Even better, was that software a creation of people, or a creation of God? A.k.a., are we back to whether God guides the hand of the artist, or is the artist the creator? And now, logically, since the software was a person, how is it dead? The same way a biological humans can be dead? This points out that the existence of God is an "objective" necessity, in a logical approach, otherwise you don't even have such basic things to work with as time.

---
You should stick to abstract math ideas, which may be as relevant as supernatural ideas created by your brain activity.
Yes, AI software can be "intelligent" with solving computer-generated problems, but a "mind" it's not.
And NOTHING to do with fantasies of gods or esp a single "God".
.

At this point, you sound religious and dogmatic, if I count atheism as another religion. The "mind" is a very simple machine, and it's apparent freedom of thought is only a side artifact of the large number of states that it can exist in. This is only a function of the number of switching nodes in the mind, nothing else.

 

[anotherlife]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

 

[PK1]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.

how dense can an atheist be ...
no, it's not from a neurological Fauna brain.
.

---
So, you cannot define YOUR version of "consciousness"?
It appears that you don't have much of it in your brain, or it's completely subjective.

Regarding your incoherent claim, i'm less of an agnostic and more of an ignostic.
.

 

[Desperado]

no kidding, who said science and God were incompatible?

 

[PK1]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.

.

 

[PK1]

no kidding, who said science and God were incompatible?

---
I did, as well as all other real scientists.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.

how dense can an atheist be ...
no, it's not from a neurological Fauna brain.
.

---
So, you cannot define YOUR version of "consciousness"?
It appears that you don't have much of it in your brain, or it's completely subjective.

Regarding your incoherent claim, i'm less of an agnostic and more of an ignostic.
.

.
previous post

In time, with further research, science will explain more & more of the behavior of matter related to your consciousness. The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.

.
The details of how consciousness occurs, how it derives from neural matter, will take ... the Nobel prize.

this is getting old, I'll stoop to your level ... by your definitive origin for consciousness all Flora is without conscious - is "ignostic" [sic] related to idiotic ?


the gal at least admits being an atheist, incapable of consequential thought.

.

 

[PK1]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.

how dense can an atheist be ...
no, it's not from a neurological Fauna brain.
.

---
So, you cannot define YOUR version of "consciousness"?

Regarding your incoherent claim, i'm less of an agnostic and more of an ignostic.
.

.
this is getting old, I'll stoop to your level ... by your definitive origin for consciousness all Flora is without conscious - is "ignostic" [sic] related to idiotic ?
.

---
Your subjective claim/idea about Flora consciousness (???) needs a coherent argument, which you have not presented.

In contrast, scientific-philosophical concepts & definitions are within the domain of objective reality, where conscious activity (thoughts) from multiple observers are aligned.

For those not familiar with ignosticism:
"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
.

 

[anotherlife]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that the mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

 

[PK1]

You don't think 80 billion neurons in the human brain reflect a relatively higher degree of consciousness?

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

Plus you can't establish a verifiable direct connection between consciousness and the human mind.

---
If you followed the advancements of modern neuroscience & cognitive psychology, you would know the many strong (math/statistically significant) correlates between neural functioning and various conscious experiences reported by subjects.
View attachment 64335
.

So, you are providing more proof to my earlier statement, that mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes. Also, those reports can't measure conscientiousness, they can only say what people report about it. Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify.

---
I do not understand your statement:
"Conscientiousness is not only what humans can directly qualify."

And i disagree with your statement:
"mind is only a function of the number of switching nodes."
The mind emanates from active neural circuits in the brain's cortex in conjunction with activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdalae, hypothalamus, and hormones, etc.

The mind is a very complicated system within an awesome biological machine.
.

 

[hangover]

* Hint, you haven't caught on yet, Flora has no "central nervous system" at all.
...
its not your brain.

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.

how dense can an atheist be ...
no, it's not from a neurological Fauna brain.
.

---
So, you cannot define YOUR version of "consciousness"?

Regarding your incoherent claim, i'm less of an agnostic and more of an ignostic.
.

.
this is getting old, I'll stoop to your level ... by your definitive origin for consciousness all Flora is without conscious - is "ignostic" [sic] related to idiotic ?
.

---
Your subjective claim/idea about Flora consciousness (???) needs a coherent argument, which you have not presented.

In contrast, scientific-philosophical concepts & definitions are within the domain of objective reality, where conscious activity (thoughts) from multiple observers are aligned.

For those not familiar with ignosticism:
"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
.

Okay, you said it. "Ignosticism is the (or an) IDEA that the existence of God is meaningless" That in itself is CONTROVERSIAL, making your whole argument meaningless. It's an oxymoron. There are many mathematical equations that have proven the existence of God. There is also one that has proven there isn't....which only shows that Human math is flawed. But then there's God's math, which is proven by the existence of the atom, and everything that exists. Zero plus one equals the big bang.

 

[PK1]

---
You don't make sense from a scientific perspective.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.
Do you believe in a/the "Flora" God?
.

.
Please define your version of "consciousness" that does not derive from your brain.

how dense can an atheist be ...
no, it's not from a neurological Fauna brain.
.

---
So, you cannot define YOUR version of "consciousness"?

Regarding your incoherent claim, i'm less of an agnostic and more of an ignostic.
.

.
this is getting old, I'll stoop to your level ... by your definitive origin for consciousness all Flora is without conscious - is "ignostic" [sic] related to idiotic ?
.

---
Your subjective claim/idea about Flora consciousness (???) needs a coherent argument, which you have not presented.

In contrast, scientific-philosophical concepts & definitions are within the domain of objective reality, where conscious activity (thoughts) from multiple observers are aligned.

For those not familiar with ignosticism:
"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
.

There are many mathematical equations that have proven the existence of God. There is also one that has proven there isn't....

God's math, which is proven by the existence of the atom ...
.

---
Math by itself proves NOTHING.
Math is a tool in logical arguments.

Have you taken any philosophy classes, such as epistemology and philosophy of science?
I doubt it, by your statements.
If "God" created the atom, then what created "God"?
How do you conceptualize "God's" substance?
"God's" purpose in creating atoms & their particles?
.