Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

On the scientific decidability of God

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings. Unfortunately, God nowhere fits into this scheme. First, God is considered to be omnipresent even in monotheistic schemata, which means "distributed over reality as a whole" and therefore lacking any specific location at which to be "distinguished". Second, there is such a thing as being too replicable. If something is distributed over reality, then it is present no matter where or when it is tested, and one cannot distinguish what is being "replicated". And then, of course, we have the "Creator" aspect of God; if God is indeed the Creator of reality, then He need not make His works replicable by mere scientists. Thus, the God concept is unavoidably ambiguous in both spatial and temporal location, and no amount of scientific experimentation can overcome this logical difficulty.

In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information, it is by definition resistant to scientific verification. God, like consciousness, is a predicate whose extended logical structure, including a supporting conceptual framework, exceeds what science is presently equipped to analyze. This, of course, means that arguments for or against God cannot be decided on empirical grounds, all but precluding a working relationship between the scientific and religious communities. Even the sincerest attempts to foster dialogue between the two camps are obstructed by the unrealistic expectations of each regarding the ability of the other to meet it on its own ground; whereas the obvious first step towards meaningful communication is a basis for mutual understanding, no amount of encouragement or monetary incentive can provide it for those whose languages stubbornly resist translation. Since this describes the relationship between science and religion, the first step toward reconciliation must be to provide a logical bridge between their internal languages - a master language in which both languages are embedded. The CTMU, conceived as the most general and comprehensive of logical languages, is designed to serve as that bridge.

It has been written that God is dead. This might more accurately have been written about faith. Mankind is creating an increasingly complex and mechanized world, and the essence of complexity and mechanism is not faith, but logic. So the time for a logical approach to theology is nigh. Accordingly, the CTMU does not begin with a preconceived definition of God; rather, it determines within the extended logical structure of reality how the properties most often attributed to God are logically related, reserving the title for the relationship actually educed. In this way, it avoids the circular, faith-driven explanations to which religion so often resorts, and at which science so often revolts. And meanwhile, by eliminating the barrier between subjective and objective reality, it permits recognition of the subjective dimension of the universe as a whole - the dimension by virtue of which the universe can truly be described as "the Mind of God."

- Chris Langan
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 1:25:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
An interesting topic, one which I think is worth investigating, though I would like to offer the following potential amendment to the topic, so as to avoid one of the common misconceptions that plagues this sort of discussion.

Science (under the conception with which I am familiar) does not decide things. Though individual authors may speak in this language, it is not representative of the scientific method as a whole. Science is about attempting to produce evidence that either supports or conflicts with a hypothesis. A large body of supporting evidence with little or no conflicting evidence leads to the development of a theory, which can be said to constitute a part of scientific knowledge.

While I understand this is a quote, intended to set the groundwork for an introduction to further explanation, I think before continuing, a brief investigation of the premises of the argument would be beneficial. I have tried to pick only the most important parts to discuss.

At 10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings.
I'm not familiar with the Scientific Method saying this, though I could be wrong. Philosophies of science do say something of the kind, but this is not an operational constraint so much as a normative one. I don't think it changes the outcome, but it is worth considering the implications.

Unfortunately, God nowhere fits into this scheme. First, God is considered to be omnipresent even in monotheistic schemata, which means "distributed over reality as a whole" and therefore lacking any specific location at which to be "distinguished".
Distinguishing something does not require it to be locatable in space. The background microwave radiation is omnipresent in some sense (not confined to a single point in space) but we can still investigate parts of it, and induct (an important part scientific inquiry) from its presence in all directions to its presence everywhere.

Second, there is such a thing as being too replicable. If something is distributed over reality, then it is present no matter where or when it is tested, and one cannot distinguish what is being "replicated".
Replication in science refers to the replicability of the experimental results, not the replication of the phenomenon itself. We precisely want something that can be measured everywhere and at all times. In order to distinguish a phenomenon like god which is omnipresent we have to develop a hypothesis of what the universe would look like if god were not present (a null hypothesis). This I see as being the difficult part of answering this question within a scientific methodology, as I have no clear idea of how to proceed in forming such a hypothesis.

And then, of course, we have the "Creator" aspect of God; if God is indeed the Creator of reality, then He need not make His works replicable by mere scientists.
Here I most definitely agree, there is no need for his creation work to be replicable by humanity, though there is an argument that this is not the only avenue available for investigation of the concept.

Thus, the God concept is unavoidably ambiguous in both spatial and temporal location, and no amount of scientific experimentation can overcome this logical difficulty.
I don't believe this is a logical difficulty so much as a methodological one, though I'll reserve judgement for a better explanation. I do agree that the concept is completely ambiguous, but not in its locality. The ambiguity arises from the lack of a coherent hypothesis of the expected effects that it would have on our universe and what differences we should expect from a godless one.

In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information, it is by definition resistant to scientific verification.
Here I am confused, what is the difference between empirical and scientific inquiry?

God, like consciousness, is a predicate whose extended logical structure, including a supporting conceptual framework, exceeds what science is presently equipped to analyze.
I would argue this is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (though a problem none the less).

This, of course, means that arguments for or against God cannot be decided on empirical grounds
Hang on, wasn't it said above above that we could potentially empirically confirm god, even going so far as to provide a means?

all but precluding a working relationship between the scientific and religious communities. Even the sincerest attempts to foster dialogue between the two camps are obstructed by the unrealistic expectations of each regarding the ability of the other to meet it on its own ground; whereas the obvious first step towards meaningful communication is a basis for mutual understanding, no amount of encouragement or monetary incentive can provide it for those whose languages stubbornly resist translation.
I agree, translation between scientific and religious explanation is a large problem and a medium of exchange would be an excellent idea. I am intrigued by it.

Since this describes the relationship between science and religion, the first step toward reconciliation must be to provide a logical bridge between their internal languages - a master language in which both languages are embedded. The CTMU, conceived as the most general and comprehensive of logical languages, is designed to serve as that bridge.
From what I understand, the CTMU is not actually a logical language, but a model of the universe. A worthwhile project all the same, but let's call a spade a spade.

It has been written that God is dead. This might more accurately have been written about faith. Mankind is creating an increasingly complex and mechanized world, and the essence of complexity and mechanism is not faith, but logic. So the time for a logical approach to theology is nigh. Accordingly, the CTMU does not begin with a preconceived definition of God; rather, it determines within the extended logical structure of reality how the properties most often attributed to God are logically related, reserving the title for the relationship actually educed. In this way, it avoids the circular, faith-driven explanations to which religion so often resorts, and at which science so often revolts. And meanwhile, by eliminating the barrier between subjective and objective reality, it permits recognition of the subjective dimension of the universe as a whole - the dimension by virtue of which the universe can truly be described as "the Mind of God."

- Chris Langan

All in all interesting, provided it has been done honestly and accessibly.

Might I ask your intentions in posting this?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 1:59:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your post explains why I don't like the various "scientific atheism" movements that have popped up - it's nonsensical to "scientifically (dis)prove God".

Just curious: how much, if any, Spinoza have you read?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 1:25:38 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:


In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information, it is by definition resistant to scientific verification.
: Here I am confused, what is the difference between empirical and scientific inquiry?

God, like consciousness, is a predicate whose extended logical structure, including a supporting conceptual framework, exceeds what science is presently equipped to analyze.
I would argue this is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (though a problem none the less).

This, of course, means that arguments for or against God cannot be decided on empirical grounds
: Hang on, wasn't it said above above that we could potentially empirically confirm god, even going so far as to provide a means?


He is making a distinction between confirmation and verification, not between empiricism and science. Basically, confirming something amounts to finding data consistent with a given theory, while verifying amounts to proving it. I'll get to your other points tomorrow.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 1:25:38 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:

At 10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings.
I'm not familiar with the Scientific Method saying this, though I could be wrong. Philosophies of science do say something of the kind, but this is not an operational constraint so much as a normative one. I don't think it changes the outcome, but it is worth considering the implications.

Whether or not it says it explicitly is irrelevant to the fact that these criteria are required for something to be scientifically investigated.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:11:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 6:00:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 1:25:38 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:


At 10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings.
I'm not familiar with the Scientific Method saying this, though I could be wrong. Philosophies of science do say something of the kind, but this is not an operational constraint so much as a normative one. I don't think it changes the outcome, but it is worth considering the implications.

Whether or not it says it explicitly is irrelevant to the fact that these criteria are required for something to be scientifically investigated.

Indeed, and you'll notice I said I didn't think it changed the outcome (though my next few points do as I dispute the claim that god cannot have these properties). However, the distinction between the philosophy of science and the practice of science is relevant to an analysis of the argument as a whole (the quote consistently conflates them). This was the reason for my comment, combined with the fact that its a good idea to at least try to be accurate (you don't seem to be disputing that it was inaccurate, though perhaps you just haven't got there yet). Thoughts?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings.

One word torpedo: demarcation. Unless Langan's solved that problem, too.

Unfortunately, God nowhere fits into this scheme. First, God is considered to be omnipresent even in monotheistic schemata, which means "distributed over reality as a whole" and therefore lacking any specific location at which to be "distinguished".

Space and time are distributed over the universe as a whole, and thus lacks any specific location at which to be distinguished. Yet, science has obviously made advancements in studying space and time empirically. The lack of any specific location at which to be distinguished does not impede the empirical study of an entity.

Second, there is such a thing as being too replicable. If something is distributed over reality, then it is present no matter where or when it is tested, and one cannot distinguish what is being "replicated".

The same logic as above applies.

In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation

I can agree with this. The progress of science has certainly modified our concept of what god is.

, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information,

Right.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:35:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings.

One word torpedo: demarcation. Unless Langan's solved that problem, too.


Do definitions not get the job done?

Unfortunately, God nowhere fits into this scheme. First, God is considered to be omnipresent even in monotheistic schemata, which means "distributed over reality as a whole" and therefore lacking any specific location at which to be "distinguished".

Space and time are distributed over the universe as a whole, and thus lacks any specific location at which to be distinguished. Yet, science has obviously made advancements in studying space and time empirically. The lack of any specific location at which to be distinguished does not impede the empirical study of an entity.

Well, we can distinguish time from space, so they are not "distributed over reality" in the sense Langan means. In any case, Langan is not saying that we can't learn about God empirically. Rather, he's saying that God's existence cannot be observed directly (and therefore cannot be verified empirically), and that we shouldn't assume that reasons to believe in God can be sought empirically given the fact that God distributes over all of reality.

Second, there is such a thing as being too replicable. If something is distributed over reality, then it is present no matter where or when it is tested, and one cannot distinguish what is being "replicated".

The same logic as above applies.



In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation

I can agree with this. The progress of science has certainly modified our concept of what god is.

, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information,

Right.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:38:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:35:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Do definitions not get the job done?

How do you mean, amigo?

Well, we can distinguish time from space, so they are not "distributed over reality" in the sense Langan means.

Let's suppose for a moment that we can distinguish between the two, which is an assumption that I'm skeptical of. Why isn't time as an independent entity distributed over all of reality? Or space?

In any case, Langan is not saying that we can't learn about God empirically

I know. That's why I said I agree with him in regards to the idea that progress in science has changed our concepts of god.

Rather, he's saying that God's existence cannot be observed directly (and therefore cannot be verified empirically),

I don't see how that follows logically.

and that we shouldn't assume that reasons to believe in God can be sought empirically given the fact that God distributes over all of reality.

Our debate is based on that assertion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:39:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

Never mind, you already responded lol.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:40:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

I'm not a Smith fanatic, so I'm not going to go through Herculean efforts to defend something he said in a video (I didn't think you expected me to, either). However, I did leave a comment on your thread; I just didn't tag you in it.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:40:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:39:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

Never mind, you already responded lol.

Damn it!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:40:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:40:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:39:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

Never mind, you already responded lol.

Damn it!

I win.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:41:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:40:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:40:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:39:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

Never mind, you already responded lol.

Damn it!

I win.

Technically it would be a tie.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:41:31 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:40:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:40:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:39:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

Never mind, you already responded lol.

Damn it!

I win.

Technically it would be a tie.

But now it wouldn't be, since I got that wrong. But you missed that, so it's actually a tie, in which case it was a tie to begin with, in which case God exists!
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:45:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:44:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:41:31 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:40:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:40:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:39:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:37:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:17:52 PM, Sargon wrote:

By the way, I made a thread about Quentin Smith (in case you haven't already noticed).

Never mind, you already responded lol.

Damn it!

I win.

Technically it would be a tie.

But now it wouldn't be, since I got that wrong. But you missed that, so it's actually a tie, in which case it was a tie to begin with, in which case God exists!

I'm just clueless.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:38:46 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:35:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Do definitions not get the job done?

How do you mean, amigo?


Say X is a cup, and Y the water in it.
X is defined to differ from Y, such that X only refers to that which is different from Y. There is no problem to begin with.

Well, we can distinguish time from space, so they are not "distributed over reality" in the sense Langan means.

Let's suppose for a moment that we can distinguish between the two, which is an assumption that I'm skeptical of. Why isn't time as an independent entity distributed over all of reality? Or space?


I would agree if by " distinguish", you mean make an absolute distinction (since they are both aspects of space-time).
In any case, Langan is not saying that we can't learn about God empirically

I know. That's why I said I agree with him in regards to the idea that progress in science has changed our concepts of god.

Rather, he's saying that God's existence cannot be observed directly (and therefore cannot be verified empirically),

I don't see how that follows logically.

Because no set of observations = God exists. It may imply it, but that's beside the point.


and that we shouldn't assume that reasons to believe in God can be sought empirically given the fact that God distributes over all of reality.

Our debate is based on that assertion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:53:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In other words, you can't observe omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, or omnibenevolence. Those are necessarily syntactic.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Say X is a cup, and Y the water in it.
X is defined to differ from Y, such that X only refers to that which is different from Y. :There is no problem to begin with.

Fair enough, but could you connect this to the discussion?

Because no set of observations = God exists. It may imply it, but that's beside the point.

If Langan agrees that empirical observations can imply that god exists or doesn't exist, then his thesis' scope has been narrowed.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 8:59:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:54:34 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Say X is a cup, and Y the water in it.
X is defined to differ from Y, such that X only refers to that which is different from Y. :There is no problem to begin with.

Fair enough, but could you connect this to the discussion?

Shouldn't you do that? After all, you were the one who brought it up.

Because no set of observations = God exists. It may imply it, but that's beside the point.

If Langan agrees that empirical observations can imply that god exists or doesn't exist, then his thesis' scope has been narrowed.

I don't see what you mean. He already explained that he does.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 9:09:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 8:54:34 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/2/2014 8:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Say X is a cup, and Y the water in it.
X is defined to differ from Y, such that X only refers to that which is different from Y. :There is no problem to begin with.

Fair enough, but could you connect this to the discussion?

Discussion? Your argument consisted of one word. What were you trying to say?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 10:31:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 12:25:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Basically, the Scientific Method says that science should be concerned with objective phenomena meeting at least two criteria: distinguishability, which means that they produce distinctive effects, and replicability, which means that they can be experimentally recreated and studied by multiple observers who compare their data and confirm each other's findings. Unfortunately, God nowhere fits into this scheme. First, God is considered to be omnipresent even in monotheistic schemata, which means "distributed over reality as a whole" and therefore lacking any specific location at which to be "distinguished". Second, there is such a thing as being too replicable. If something is distributed over reality, then it is present no matter where or when it is tested, and one cannot distinguish what is being "replicated". And then, of course, we have the "Creator" aspect of God; if God is indeed the Creator of reality, then He need not make His works replicable by mere scientists. Thus, the God concept is unavoidably ambiguous in both spatial and temporal location, and no amount of scientific experimentation can overcome this logical difficulty.

In short, while the God concept may be amenable to empirical confirmation, e.g. through the discovery of vanishingly improbable leaps of biological evolution exceeding available genetic information, it is by definition resistant to scientific verification. God, like consciousness, is a predicate whose extended logical structure, including a supporting conceptual framework, exceeds what science is presently equipped to analyze. This, of course, means that arguments for or against God cannot be decided on empirical grounds, all but precluding a working relationship between the scientific and religious communities. Even the sincerest attempts to foster dialogue between the two camps are obstructed by the unrealistic expectations of each regarding the ability of the other to meet it on its own ground; whereas the obvious first step towards meaningful communication is a basis for mutual understanding, no amount of encouragement or monetary incentive can provide it for those whose languages stubbornly resist translation. Since this describes the relationship between science and religion, the first step toward reconciliation must be to provide a logical bridge between their internal languages - a master language in which both languages are embedded. The CTMU, conceived as the most general and comprehensive of logical languages, is designed to serve as that bridge.

It has been written that God is dead. This might more accurately have been written about faith. Mankind is creating an increasingly complex and mechanized world, and the essence of complexity and mechanism is not faith, but logic. So the time for a logical approach to theology is nigh. Accordingly, the CTMU does not begin with a preconceived definition of God; rather, it determines within the extended logical structure of reality how the properties most often attributed to God are logically related, reserving the title for the relationship actually educed. In this way, it avoids the circular, faith-driven explanations to which religion so often resorts, and at which science so often revolts. And meanwhile, by eliminating the barrier between subjective and objective reality, it permits recognition of the subjective dimension of the universe as a whole - the dimension by virtue of which the universe can truly be described as "the Mind of God."

- Chris Langan

I believe the infinite can only be known by the finite. I believe we experience God but God experiences nothing.

I also believe faith is very much alive and well.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 11:55:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think God can not be logically proven (100%).

I think God can rationally be accepted.

I think Atheist counter arguments are illogical or add nothing to my world view.

I think when I add in personal experiences and observations, this makes the acceptance of God more appealing than not accepting God's existence.

I think being a skeptic would require me to adopt being a skeptic in all things and I would be intellectual paralyzed from working with a variety of theorems and proposed hypothesis of reality.

I think the best option for viewing life is the logical rational acceptance of God.