attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Science is empirical rational based
God is a metaphysical and transcendental based entity
Metaphysics is something that is totally beyond Science
Why theists are forcing the transcendental God into the empirical box is due to psychology
There is no clash between my knowing
that God\'God' exists, and scientific inquiry.
Btw, do you understand the fallacy of equivocation or conflation of different perspectives?
As I had explained there are two main issues regarding the idea of God, i.e.
- 1. Empirical based God
2. Ontological God
For the empirical based God, e.g. the bearded man in the sky, yes it is possible for science to verify it, but then bring the evidence to justify an empirical God. This is the 1/7 possible God of Richard Dawkins.
But the empirical God is a sort of inferior and useless God when cornered.
So humans has to come up with an ontological God, i.e. the all powerful God who created the whole universe and can do anything.
The Transcendental, Metaphysical & Ontological God cannot be equivocated with empirical Science.
Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.
Stop making out that science contradicts the validity of God\'God's existence.
As long as you are using Science to justify an ontological God, you are caught in the fallacy of equivocation.