Should religion and science be regarded as NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)?

This, clearly, doesn't stop some atheists from demanding that only things such as the creation of square circles would be proof of God's omnipotence.

It takes some considerable lint-headedness to opt for idiotic interpretations of what other people say.

In other words, nobody ever said that God created Himself. And yet some (very hateful, and thus lint-headed) atheists like to jump to that interpretation when someone says that "God is defined as having authored this thing called 'existence'."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like I said, the two hemispheres of the brain process data differently. God is best viewed through the right brain instead of the left brain. You do not look at stars through a microscope or you will not see anything. Then you will assume it does not exist. A little science common sense you tell you which tools work with which phenomena.

The spatial part of the brain deals in 3-D data processing. This is why God is given the attributes of a spatial concept; omni-(something). The differential processing of the God concept, such as a particular person, was done for left brainers. But right brainers get the real deal, since they have access to the tools needed to explore the phenomena. Once you have data, it does not matter if other who don't have data, can't see it. But you try to explain to them so they are not acting foolish in the name of science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then I could report half of the omnipotence threads.

And you seriously think that people don't understand that?
Seriously?

The question is, whether you would allow for room for that detail, or whether you would, as usual, jump in with bitter judgmentalism, and threaten with your moderator status in the background.

You have a tendency to caricaturize theistic arguments, and then go on a judmental, hating tirade based on that caricature.
It's a real shame that you do that.

 

Fraggle..

I will not argue against the concept of the level of knowledge that we have now compared to the level of knowledge we will have..

I will argue that science will/can not know EVERYTHING there is to know..
(maybe not as effectively as others can)

i will agree that anything that can be measured will be found out in time.

but again science is just one tool to describe that which exists.

it is very (egotistical?) to claim that science will find the answers to EVERYTHING..(this also speaks to your belief and faith that this will happen and not a fact that this will happen)

but i digress..

your take lines up with my argument about comparing apples and oranges..
although you can claim that it is possible to apply physic to human nature, i would still disagree..(and will continue to disagree till someone can predict what i will do in any given situation)..

If that were true then i don't think we would need any laws that force ppl to behave to a certain standard,(which i would concede if it meant no more laws)
as long as human nature exist there will be unpredictability and illogic..
and it is that factor that i argue apples and oranges..

 

Knowledge can not be held true without science.

 

Knowledge cannot be held as FACT without science..

Truth is in the eye of the beholder..

 

We are not entitled to our own facts. Reality is what it is. Are we allowed our own truth?

 

this is what gets argued with the scientific perspective..
(see my argument about apples and oranges)

this is what i believe..

what works for you won't necessarily work for me..
<edit>
there is a difference between Facts and Truth

 

If you mean "truth" as in your philosophical reasoning as to why the facts are as they are, then I agree. We may indeed have our own understanding as to "why".

Many times, truth has to be modified when confronted with new facts. This can be a problem in the areas where science and religion overlap. For better or worse, science is not trying to prove or disprove anyone's philosophical outlook. Science is merely trying to uncover the facts.

 

No it isn't, faith is..

 

The scientific method challenges us to examine 'facts,' 'truths' and 'beliefs' just as much as it does hypotheses.
The purpose is to define the most accurate model possible in order to describe reality.
Why need a model to describe reality? It's right in front of us, right?
We cannot see it. Our minds have developed a very particular way. Our vision is restricted, not just by our limited eyes, but out perceptions.
A descriptive model, on the other hand, we can see.

You, squirrel present the appearance of someone who believes that there are things scientifically cannot be measured.
I've heard that claim so many times... and I find the reason something cannot be measured has a very clear reason why: It doesn't exist. But those that believe use this claim to support their Invisible Unicorn that no one can see or prove or disprove exists.

 

there are many things that you hold as truths that are not facts.

how do i know this?
because science does not have all the answers.
at some point everyone has to rely on faith that the truths that they know are truth without any facts to support them...

(dare i step into it again?)
the Big bang is not a fact. (not arguing pro-creation) there are other hypothesis's/theory's out there concerning the beginning of the universe..granted the big bang is the most believable since there is lots of evidence for it..but it still has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..
or if the big bang is a bad example..how about dark energy or dark matter?

how about quantum entanglement?
Is that fact or just a belief that has evidence to support it..

or if the examples i gave are incorrect..

How about Love?
is it a Fact that your boy/girl friend loves you or is it a truth based on your faith that he/she is being honest with him/herself and you..

Is it a fact that you were fired from your last job because of the reasons given? (sorry..this one has a little attitude behind it..)

 

yes i agree with this..
and in that spirit, it is not scientifically accurate to dismiss an idea just because it is a belief and not a fact.(but this is another argument.)

it is because our vision/perspective is restricted that we cling to misconceptions, this goes back to our human nature...our desire to be 'right'
but i think i am getting sidetracked..

not to pick nits, but you yourself have argued another reason..that we do not have the tools yet to measure it..
either way it still requires faith that what you believe as truth is truth..
it is faith that you believe that someday a persons mind/brain will be able to be predicted..not facts..sure you may be able to cite advances in a historical context, but that still does not make it a Fact that the future of science will make these things known..you only have your own faith for that.

see i can't argue with this because, I know that some do..(with the exception of i would have used the word 'some' instead of 'those' at the beginning..)

 

no you didn't..i meant you could.

And fraggle for the record i do appreciate the way in which you correct me..
i do like to use words in the right context..and learn new words..
(although in honesty, sometimes it takes a few times to remember..)

and congrats on 34yrs marriage..does she mind being called Mrs. Fraggle?

 

Perhaps if you would allow for an actual conversation to take place, you might actually learn something about their stance.

I'm sure that if you would cut off 95% of your statements and consider just the first 5%, you too would find even your own statements "so utterly preposterous, it's hard to take them seriously."

It's tough being enlightened, huh. All those people you claim to know better than they do, all those people you need to judge ...

And does all this judgment and hatred of yours in any way help change things for the better?

If you feel threatened by the Abrahamists, then this suggests that you do not have a life outlook superior to theirs.

Do you realize this?

So whatever happened with "survival of the fittest," "the struggle for survival" and all that?? Don't you like those concepts anymore?

 

Or more accurately, nobody going to think that making square circles is a possibility, as long as they continue to assume the familiar principles of logical consistency.

I've posted arguments similar to that. The point wasn't about proving omnipotence. I don't see how that particular proof would even be possible. The point was rather to make trouble for certain kind of arguments about divine omnipotence.

The point was that announcing that God needn't be able to do arguably illogical things seems to make logic prior even to God. It suggests that God isn't ultimate after all, and that there are principles (like logic) that are even higher and more powerful than he is, to which God is subject, just as we humans are.

And that in turn appears to be a serious challenge to the divine omnipotence idea.

Christian theology often makes a very strong distinction between creation and creator. All of creation is indeed supposed to be the product of God's creative act. But God himself isn't part of creation and isn't a created being. God is supposed to exist eternally because of his own intrinsic existent nature or something.

(Note to Wynn, who might be one of the small number of people on Sciforums likely to pick up on this: In Indian philosophical terms (Madhyamaka in this case) Christian theology seems to be saying that God is the only being with svabhava, or 'own-being'. God is the only thing that is what it is simply because it's its own intrinsic nature to be that thing. And according to ancient Indian philosophy, anything with own-being (svabhava) is going to necessarily be eternal. All of the rest of phenomenal creation is 'dependently-originated'. It is whatever it is because some outside causal influence determined it to be that. And just as these latter kind of beings come into existence, they go out of existence too. They are inherently temporal and transitory.)

 

I've replied to you on this in the other thread.
Logic is for humans.

If it seems that God is beneath logic, then check what definitions of God you are working with, whether you have actually accepted God as the First Being.
Most theological problems seem to derive from the fact that people forget that their very own thinking about God is facilitated by God as well, ie. they do not actually work with the definition that God is the First Being.

Ie. they are not being consistent in their reasoning, this is why they run into problems.

If you define God as the Creator, Controller, Maintainer of the Universe, as The First Being, but then you try to do as if you can independently show this or that about God, then you're simply being inconsistent.

This isn't about piety, it's about consistency.

Which should be all the more reason why Christians should be able to explain all the usual theological problems. But strangely, they aren't.

Notably, some Hindu theologies maintain that God and the individual souls are all necessary beings, and that there never was or will be a time when they all wouldn't exist - they always exist.

In Christian theology, beings like you and me are not considered necessary, they are considered beings that can fail to be.
The SEP entry for this.

"Creation" means something else in Christian theology than it does in some Eastern ones.

 

Reason or cause and effect is 2-D thought. There is also 3-D thought. The 3-D is processed in the right brain, while 2-D cause and effect is left brain.

As a way of analogy, we can approximate a 3-D ball in 3-d space using a large number of rational planes, with a common center, but at different angles (POV). For example, each orientation of philosophy can be inferred with logic and data. Each represents one plane, while all together will approximates the 3-D ball or type called philosophy. Any orientaton can be 2-D but to get 3-d you need them all, even if they conflict.

If we had all orientations of philosophy (all the rational planes) with the same center (theme) but different angles (POV) we have an approximation for 3-D. At 3-D, you can flex the 3-D ball and cause planes to leave their plane. Picture slow motion hitting a tennis ball. This flex in 3-D is cause, effect, cause and the effect, cause and effect. The result will not seem rational in 2-D but will work in 3-D, since you can't infer leaving a plane for another with only the premises of that plane; effect, cause and effect.

God would not be limited to 2-D or just one rational plane. The concept of God is better approximated through a wide range of orientations (planes) with a common intutition. The right brain can flex this 3-D ball and many rational planes (orientations) become moved out of place into adjacent places. All of a sudden Christianity sounds like Budhha. Logic is left brain but right brain does it differently using a range of left brain orientations. God is better approximated by 3-D than it is by 2-D, since 2-D is too limited.

Let me give another example, say we have two political oritentations, democrat and republican. Both can be reasoned out based on its premises and assumptions. Both express truth but neither express the whole truth. Both deny the truth in the other side, perhaps with logic. At 3-D you need to know both at the same time (common center) and all the data. The left brain can typically do one at a time. The right brain is 3-D and needs both. The 3-D may lead to a bridge between the two but may not logically follow from either plane but will work in 3-D.