If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.

[schmidlap]

Yeah, sounds good and fancy. But no, at root "science" is just another word for "study."

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, sounds good and fancy. But no, at root "science" is just another word for "study."

View attachment 494397

View attachment 494398​

Yep. Like I said, for example:

//the science of theology

which is "the study of the nature of God and religious belief."
and "It's the method that makes all the difference."

Knowledge vs. Belief you say? "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?"

Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues.

Jay Gould was brilliant and famous. Dictionaries generally supply good definitions. Then again, from long experience I know what I'm talking about. "Science" is (functionally) just another word for "study."

 

[schmidlap]

"Science" is just another word for "study."

Science is the body of accrued knowledge based upon observation, hypothesis, and experimentation to develop empirical data that is always subject to the accrual of additional empirical data.

Religion is dogmatic and approaches reality quite differently.

One can study either, both, or neither.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Science" is just another word for "study."

Science is the body of accrued knowledge based upon observation, hypothesis, and experimentation to develop empirical data that is always subject to the accrual of additional empirical data.

Religion is dogmatic and approaches reality quite differently.

One can study either, both, or neither.

Okay, one last attempt. First, I already clarified my meaning by adding the caveat "functionally." Also, there are both the noun and verb forms of "study" to consider. Picking one's preferred published definition of "science" is just deliberately missing the point. Neither "science" nor "religion" function as "an approach." Scientific method is an approach. To any extent "One can study either, both, or neither" study (verb form) remains the functional point, whereas epistemology (noun) is the specific form or method of study that contrasts the two or not as the case may be. But don't believe me. I'm just tellin' ya after mulling it all over for fifty some years.

 

[schmidlap]

Okay, one last attempt. First, I already clarified my meaning by adding the caveat "functionally." Also, there are both the noun and verb forms of "study" to consider. Picking one's preferred published definition of "science" is just deliberately missing the point. Neither "science" nor "religion" function as "an approach." Scientific method is an approach. To any extent "One can study either, both, or neither" study (verb form) remains the functional point, whereas epistemology (noun) is the specific form or method of study that contrasts the two or not as the case may be. But don't believe me. I'm just tellin' ya after mulling it all over for fifty some years.

Millions have spent thousands of years pondering over such imponderables.

Semantics aside, conflating science and religion serves no legitimate purpose. The disparate disciplines are “non-overlapping magisteria.”

Musing as to whether there are many god, just one god, or no gods, and deciding upon what are the natures of the gods, if any, is a matter that is not amenable to the accrual and interpretation of empirical data, the realm of science.

If one is concerned with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, he will not find the answer with an electron microscope.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.

eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.

 

[Bernhard]

God is everything creation isn't: Creation is fallible, God is unfallible. Creation is flawed, God is unflawed. Creation has an end, God is endless. Creation is divided into zillions tiny parts, God is one and undivided.

We cannot understand God, because the comprehended can never comprehend the comprehending.

However, if the great world religions are true, we can see some of God's attributes shine through His messengers: Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and so on.

 

[ding]

Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.

eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.

Saying that religion is unnecessary seems to defy the scientific principle of natural selection. According to the principles of natural selection if religion offered no functional advantage whatsoever (i.e. it was unnecessary) it would have died out long ago like our vestigial tail.

Don't you love science?

 

[Bernhard]

Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.

eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.

Saying that religion is unnecessary seems to defy the scientific principle of natural selection. According to the principles of natural selection if religion offered no functional advantage whatsoever (i.e. it was unnecessary) it would have died out long ago like our vestigial tail.

Don't you love science?

Yep, I agree with you.

Even the religious rules that seem outdated today once were a huge step forward for mankind.

I also think religion still today can be a huge benefit for the world, if professed in a manner that does not contradict reason or science. Which requires acknowledging that a given religion's spiritual truths are eternal, yet the materialistic rules and explanations giving in its scriptures are not supposed to be interpreted literally.

 

[ding]

Yeah, saying "it's the method that matters" is not some hifalutin "imponderable" but whatever. Enjoy your dancing upon pins.

eta: I object to misguidedly ceding ground to religion. Regardless of what some idiots may or may not have said in the past, science ("the study of") is ubiquitous. Religious scholars "study" stuff like the Bible. Science and religion completely overlap. If there's any point to atheism it's that religion is utterly fabricated, manipulative, and unnecessary. One can study ethics just fine without genuflecting toward some religious book, place, or symbol.

Saying that religion is unnecessary seems to defy the scientific principle of natural selection. According to the principles of natural selection if religion offered no functional advantage whatsoever (i.e. it was unnecessary) it would have died out long ago like our vestigial tail.

Don't you love science?

Yep, I agree with you.

Even the religious rules that seem outdated today once were a huge step forward for mankind.

I also think religion still today can be a huge benefit for the world, if professed in a manner that does not contradict reason or science. Which requires acknowledging that a given religion's spiritual truths are eternal, yet the materialistic rules and explanations giving in its scriptures are not supposed to be interpreted literally.

I believe William James said it best...

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

 

[BreezeWood]

Okay, one last attempt. First, I already clarified my meaning by adding the caveat "functionally." Also, there are both the noun and verb forms of "study" to consider. Picking one's preferred published definition of "science" is just deliberately missing the point. Neither "science" nor "religion" function as "an approach." Scientific method is an approach. To any extent "One can study either, both, or neither" study (verb form) remains the functional point, whereas epistemology (noun) is the specific form or method of study that contrasts the two or not as the case may be. But don't believe me. I'm just tellin' ya after mulling it all over for fifty some years.

Millions have spent thousands of years pondering over such imponderables.

Semantics aside, conflating science and religion serves no legitimate purpose. The disparate disciplines are “non-overlapping magisteria.”

Musing as to whether there are many god, just one god, or no gods, and deciding upon what are the natures of the gods, if any, is a matter that is not amenable to the accrual and interpretation of empirical data, the realm of science.

If one is concerned with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, he will not find the answer with an electron microscope.

.

Musing as to whether there are many god, just one god, or no gods, and deciding upon what are the natures of the gods, if any, is a matter that is not amenable to the accrual and interpretation of empirical data, the realm of science.

.
is gravity not recognized by - - empirical data.

your statement, gods is not true for the metaphysical forces that did not just create the physical, physiology of life but also in combination with the physiology's spiritual content.

in combination from an existence that came into being and has a finite duration culminating with its disappearance that is not definitive for what purpose the event took place. for which surly there is an answer.

to leave out a scientific explanation for life's events is no less than limiting science no different than in past history to supplement irrational superstitious hooliganism.

 

[ding]

So even Darwin would have to admit that religion has a functional advantage over materialism.

 

[BreezeWood]

So even Darwin would have to admit that religion has a functional advantage over materialism.

.
as to your irrational obsession the admission is also true on Earth there would not be a spiritual content without its physiological component -

and those desert religions that ignore the relevance of Garden Earth - - are not religions but political grandstands for the unholy mentally ill.

 

[presonorek]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

there's no yes and no about it--no one can prove he exists = no god...and, please, don't anyone say that stupid shit ''you can't prove he doesn't exist'''

I say we have a showdown like Elijah did against the prophets of Ba’al.

People who believe in humankind on one side and those who believe in God on the other side. Put two alters up with a lamb. Then ask a group of humans to consume the sacrifice and then have the other side ask God to consume the sacrifice.

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

I've never heard such rubbish. That exercise is establishing anything but how loopy you are.

That’s how it was done in the Old Testament and it worked good.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That’s how it was done in the Old Testament and it worked good.

And you knew who you were then..

 

[BreezeWood]

That’s how it was done in the Old Testament and it worked good.

And you knew who you were then..

.

And you knew who you were then..

Then we will know once and for all. Do humans exist or does God exist? We can’t have it both ways.

.
howabout you now. nuts - your spiritual content serves only your physiology till it expires and you know everything to know on how that works.

does "can't have" both ways exclude a round trip ... certainly for some.

evolution says otherwise for those who give it a shot, eventually.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you're alluding to one's rot potentially fertilizing coming generations, potentially even generations of one's own family, then sure and of course. Far less likely with the popularity of cremation these days. Otherwise, no. I was reminded of Edith's screeching in the "All in the Family" theme song is all. Way to take all the fun out of it, thanks.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

What are you smoking??

 

[schmidlap]

What are you smoking??

Epistemological musings may upset you, but you are free to choose the number of gods you like to recognize as well as their limits and affection for you.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you're alluding to one's rot potentially fertilizing coming generations, potentially even generations of one's own family, then sure and of course. Far less likely with the popularity of cremation these days. Otherwise, no. I was reminded of Edith's screeching in the "All in the Family" theme song is all. Way to take all the fun out of it, thanks.

.

Way to take all the fun out of it, thanks.

.
not sure who or what you were referring to - your final line is a real ringer though should they commit harikarie ...