THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:01 pm

socratus wrote:Even an omnipotent God could not create a square circle
or make 2 plus 3 equal five . . . because . . . His work is limited
by the laws of Physics. And as wise as every wise man
God wouldn't “make a stone so heavy He couldn't lift”.

This is the reason that we can understand Him logically.
======================…

Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Postby socratus » Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:58 am

Arminius wrote:
socratus wrote:Even an omnipotent God could not create a square circle
or make 2 plus 3 equal five . . . because . . . His work is limited
by the laws of Physics. And as wise as every wise man
God wouldn't “make a stone so heavy He couldn't lift”.

This is the reason that we can understand Him logically.
======================…

Why should God or his work be limited?
And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said:
Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God,
because according to them, thus by definition,
God is the creator of everything.


Everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws
======================================
The secret of God and Life is hiding in the ' Theory of Light Quanta.'
socratus
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:27 am
Location: Israel. Kiriat - Gat.

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Postby jerkey » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:34 am

James S Saint wrote:God was no more an invention than Relativity or Evolution.
Is that an invention or a discovery?


Both cause at the time it was made, this distinction
was unknown, so we are justified in using the term

Similarly, limits were non existent at that time.
jerkey
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Postby Arminius » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:47 am

socratus wrote:
Arminius wrote:
socratus wrote:Even an omnipotent God could not create a square circle
or make 2 plus 3 equal five . . . because . . . His work is limited
by the laws of Physics. And as wise as every wise man
God wouldn't “make a stone so heavy He couldn't lift”.

This is the reason that we can understand Him logically.
======================…

Why should God or his work be limited?
And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said:
Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God,
because according to them, thus by definition,
God is the creator of everything.


Everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws
======================================

Not to those many humans who believe in God and his laws (regardless whether some others do not), also not to those who do not accept all physical laws and methods.

Note: We are talking about it in a philosophical (especially metaphysical) and a scientifical (especially physical) sense here.

If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word "physics" shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word "metaphysics" shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.

Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Postby jerkey » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:45 pm

Exactly , Arminius.The old Hermetic descriptions knew of no difference, they did not consider modern science. It is only modern science makes the break, as if that break had some function in the sense of differentiation. The a-priori integration of thousands of years, condensed to differential non functionally supposed conditionals, make no sense, oddly surprising to the Oxford group.

It really should have come as no surprise to them, that this break was the result of trying to find certainty, where only degrees sufficient to accommodate that end or function is required.

James has agreed with this in a previous forum, where critics objected, because of the perception that no accurately conceivable function could ever approach the absolute. But in future tech, it is only conjecture, but a credible one, where such ultra specification may become necessary.

If it could be allowed that such ends, may at one point define the earliest archaic means, then, and even then could an analogy be made between a Deity and a machine. However, even in the event that such a state is reached, it could be argued, that that as preempted by the argument for such a comparison between man and the machine.

That is no problem, for the anthropomorphic origin of God has been a source of discussion from the enlightenment on.
jerkey
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:50 pm

jerkey wrote:Exactly , Arminius.The old Hermetic descriptions knew of no difference, they did not consider modern science. It is only modern science makes the break, as if that break had some function in the sense of differentiation. The a-priori integration of thousands of years, condensed to differential non functionally supposed conditionals, make no sense, oddly surprising to the Oxford group.

It really should have come as no surprise to them, that this break was the result of trying to find certainty, where only degrees sufficient to accommodate that end or function is required.

James has agreed with this in a previous forum, where critics objected, because of the perception that no accurately conceivable function could ever approach the absolute. But in future tech, it is only conjecture, but a credible one, where such ultra specification may become necessary.

If it could be allowed that such ends, may at one point define the earliest archaic means, then, and even then could an analogy be made between a Deity and a machine. However, even in the event that such a state is reached, it could be argued, that that as preempted by the argument for such a comparison between man and the machine.

That is no problem, for the anthropomorphic origin of God has been a source of discussion from the enlightenment on.

The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science - especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend on the Non-Occidentals or the machines (=>) whether science will be continued or not.

Maybe science will "die" in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s tragedy "Faust".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users