Responses below...
Quote from Ether64:
You know...I like you. I really appreciate that you have taken all this time (from your boredom) to explain this to me. You are the second atheist I've ever spoken to that was willing to communicate reasonably to try to get mutual understanding, so I really respect you for that.
Response: I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I don't know whether or not there is a god. From my perspective, absolute knowledge of God's existence is impossible for any living being, thus agnosticism is the only possibility which is absent a "belief." And, as previously discussed, I don't "believe" or "disbelieve," anything. I just weigh the existing evidence and search for more.
----
If I'm understanding you correctly then, we are speaking from two totally different vantage points, ie: philosophy and science. Correct? Are you saying then, that science makes absolutely no use of any philosophy in formulating the theories devised within the methodology? It seems to me that there must be some philosophies utilized in the process of theorizing. If that is the case, how then could any scientic theory be based on a completely fixed point or fixed variables?
Response: Scientists philosophize all the time. The technical difference between a philosopher and a scientist is that the conclusions drawn by a philosopher do not require verifiable evidence, whereas the conclusions drawn from a scientist do.
Clearly, many scientists fail to separate their philosophical conclusions from their scientific conclusions, with the result being that a peer-reviewed scientific paper may say something which does not necessarily follow from the experimental findings. But the scientific ideal is to only conclude from the findings.
----
I understand what you said about the fact that God is unmeasurable, and the scientific method utilizes fixed points in its calculations. I'm clear on this. But, you gotta understand...I'm a word/art person, not a science/math person.
I'm lookin' at what youâre sayin' and I still see a correlation. If the scientific method is derived at infancy from a theory, and a theory (per dictionary.com) is a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; and philosophy (per dictionary.com) is the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them, ie: the philosophy of science; how are they so vastly different?
Response: You see it the same as me, except that you are using "theory" differently. A hypothesis is a philosophic statement/question (e.g., "The world is flat."). A conclusion is either philosophic, if it is drawn from non-verifiable evidence, or scientific if it is drawn from verifiable evidence).
The difference is then in the experiment. Without the experiment, the activity of the scientist is simply philosophy.
However, a "scientific theory" is the consensus of many hypotheses, experiments and conclusions, all of which support the theory, whereas a "philosophic theory" is the consensus of many hypotheses and conclusions, but absent any significant verifiable evidence.
Astrology is a philosophic theory.
Astronomy is a scientific theory.
Both may be true. Only one has any verifiable evidence.
----
I see the process of conceptualizing in both, and wouldn't that be based on one's core beliefs or ideals? The only difference I see in what you have stated is that a part of the scientific method does involve "fixed points." But not every equation or variable studied in science is fixed...is it?
Response: It doesn't matter what one's core beliefs are. What matters is whether or not you conduct an experiment to confirm those beliefs. If you do, then you're a scientist -- if you don't, you're a philosopher.
----
When you spoke of the string theorists, you mentioned that they are attempting to narrow their philosophy by staying within certain bounds in order to be able to test their theory. So this makes me curious on another front. If one knows that science has certain fixed limitations and boundaries per se, and one also knows that God is limitless, how then can one base their conclusions on the reality of God on such a limited system? It sounds to me like boxed in thinking. And mind you, I say what I say, because I think you understand where I'm coming from, just as I am coming to a more clear understanding of your perspective as well. It doesn't mean, however, that I won't question it. I like questioning things...and God for that matter.
Response: The simple test for God, within the scope of science is the experiment. If you can present any experiment which can verify the existence of God, then you will be acknowledged as the greatest scientist who has ever lived -- because God, by definition (at least among Western thinkers) is beyond any possible scientific measurement. This is an impossible contradiction for which there is no logical resolution.
Z10, contends that in Eastern thought, God is one with nature, and so is one with humanity. I have to ask why, then can we not measure God, if he is part of the natural universe. I don't think that there is a satisfactory answer to this question. However, I don't hold it against Z10. He sees the answer as self-evident.
Maybe it is -- maybe not. That's what makes a horse race.
----
See....I'm not being facetious, but when you say that the end of a problem is, âthe answer is forever undetermined...â this is what makes me think along the line of boxed in, or limited thinking; because how then can any thing within a continually changing spectrum such as science, then be concluded as factual? In my mind, when you say factual, you are saying that it is THE truth. I don't see how that can be; when as traderNik said, â...it is constantly being disproved...â to get to the truth. How then can it be factual?
Response: There is scientific truth, and then there is ultimate truth. Ultimate truth lies only in the mind of God, assuming he exists. So, yes, scientific truth is self limiting. If it were not, then no scientist could draw the line between what is measurable and what is not. Once we allow for limitless unmeasurable answers, we allow for Astrology to be true, even though it is demonstrably false.
At some point you must draw the line and say, for example, that the bridge is engineered as well as can reasonably be expected given the present state of scientific knowledge.
Are there forces acting upon the bridge which may cause its ultimate destruction, and about which we are still entirely unaware? Almost certainly. Does it matter to the first 100 million cars which will cross that bridge? Not in the slightest.
When we built a bridge from Earth orbit (scientifically possible, and a very useful project, as well), we may encounter some as yet unknown problems. But, until we do, the bridges from Earth to Earth will still function quite nicely with the science we already have, and without resort to as yet unanswered philosophical questions, which will someday hopefully be converted into scientific answers, via verifiable experiments.
----
In that case, it could be said that it never reaches the truth. It may reach a truth, but not the truth. Do you see my point? He did not get what I was saying, and apparently neither did james_bond. Neither of them actually addressed my point. Both got contentious with me; on the one hand accusing me of trying to come off like an expert, after I had already openly stated I was not, and then on the other hand, telling me I was showing my ignorance, and had overstepped my bounds in questioning what is deemed as factual.
Response: The unknown is always part of everything. Before Einstein, the classical physicists only had Newton's equations to go by, and they knew that there was something "wrong" with their model of the universe. Some imputed God into the answer.
Then Einstein appeared and answered many of the questions, and removed God from the answer. As time has progressed, other questions have arisen and they too are presently unanswered. Once again, some impute God into the answer.
Will we come to the point, someday, when there simply is no other answer to some question except"God?" Maybe. But, until that day, every scientist must plod onward testing for answers without resort to God, because to do otherwise is to be a philosopher, rather than a scientist.
----
Itâs not a personal attack... and I have no problem admitting that I donât have knowledge in a certain area, because I am quite secure in who I am, and what I believe. I was simply trying to make a point, which I think you would understand because you are the most mature and rational person in here.
Response: "Now who can argue with that?" David Huddleston, "Blazing Saddles" (1974).
----
"So, what variable would you use in an equation for God? It would simply be a symbol which would always be there in every equation..."
This is true and the symbol would stay the same because God is unchanging. I can agree with this. And yes, I am starting to see how your mind works. I believe you are starting to see how mine works as well; therefore, I can respect your philosophy...no problem. I'll get back to you later on your other response. Peace.
Alrighty then.
