Scientific Method and God

[-1-]

If you ask what any object is, it is a conglomeration of atoms, each of which comprises an electron cloud, and possibly energy states of a vibration that makes up the nucleus of atoms... in other words, an object is nothing.

Ask what thought is... oy vey.

Ask what "what" is...

I don't know what the next series of questions will be in the newest emerging trend of philosophy, but I can tell you that the series that come after that will be decided by stone axes and bows and arrows.

[surreptitious57]

And what is the scientific method

I Observation
2 Experimentation
3 Testable Hypotheses
4 Replication
5 Peer Review

[Eugene Glus]

1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Yep. But what does it prove? That God lies somewhere?

It sounds like that firstly it's necessary for all scientists to disprove an existence of God. Where's the role of God himself? He needs to put some activity to help someone to find him. Instead of his appearance through the world or in the world, we can see many his followers, of all kinds, which are interpreting some natural processes as divine influence.

[Atla]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

[uwot]

And what is the scientific method

I Observation
2 Experimentation
3 Testable Hypotheses
4 Replication
5 Peer Review

I think most people would agree with that outline. The problems start when you get into what counts as an observation, how experiments should be conducted, what a reliable test is, whether something like the big bang is repeatable and who is qualified to review.

[Eodnhoj7]

1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Yep. But what does it prove? That God lies somewhere?

It sounds like that firstly it's necessary for all scientists to disprove an existence of God. Where's the role of God himself? He needs to put some activity to help someone to find him. Instead of his appearance through the world or in the world, we can see many his followers, of all kinds, which are interpreting some natural processes as divine influence.

The scientific method is a proof in itself because of its form and function with this form and function observing the same limits which can be observed in definitions of God/Divinity.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is a circle-in-a-square, not a squared-circle which is an impossibility.

Or the image can be inverted to a square in a circle...regardless the dualism observes an inherent relation of parts which exists as a part in itself.

"Square-Circle" and "Squared-Circle" are two seperate points to address, as the first post observes "Square-Circle".

The Square-Circle effectively observe two terms as 1 term and in these respects is an observation of relation between parts as a part in itself...hence the image is correct.

A "Squared" circle observes the past tense of a verb where the circle is effectively being squared. The Squaring of Circle, which is the common manner for determining Pi within history, observes that as Pi is infinite the squaring of a circle in itself is infinite. Considering observing the an infinite, such as a squared circle, in the past tense observes inherent boundaries through the past tense in the respect the past is a set limit in many respects, a negative boundary is observed in the respect 3.14159... (or the visual image of a squared circle) is defined by infinity acting as a negative definition in the respect the form is limited through "lack of further definition"...however considering this negative definition observe this negative nature as formless the squared circle is both defined (as is) and not defined (what maybe) considering the limits of the past exist dually to a potential future which effectively is formless through time itself. In these respect the squared circle is an observation of a medial boundary of movement as two parts (active movement of squaring and no movement of constant circle) which exist as 1 in themselves.

Don't waste your time beating round the bush.

The main principle here is the Law of Non-Contradiction i.e.

A circle cannot be a square at the same time and same sense.
A circle cannot be a non-circle and a square a non-square at the same time and same sense.

Some try to use paraconsistent logic to overcome the LNC but that invoke different senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

The picture does not show the "square" being a circle in the same time in the same sense as both exist through eachother as an object of relation. The picture above shows a figure of geometric relations which exists as a thing in itself. A "square-circle" is a unit of 2 relations (square and circle) and in these respects no contradiction occurs.

The circle is a non-circle through the square (considering the square, along with all geometric figures) is a grade of the circle.
The square is a non-square through the circle (considering the circle is a square without angles) is a grade of the square.

Either way one seeks to define the square of circle, the foundational measuring point of the one allows the other to exist as a grade of the prior.

Triadic logic, in the basic hegelian sense, can be applied where the percievably contradictory object exists as is and the contradictory aspect of the square and circle can exist in the same time and same place considering the angles of the square and circumference of the point both extend from the 0d points which form the foundations of both. In these respects the square and circle exist through the 0d space which form them as this void is a common median.

The law of non-contradiction is addressed on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24403

and can be observed as "dually" negating itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Or the image can be inverted to a square in a circle...regardless the dualism observes an inherent relation of parts which exists as a part in itself.

"Square-Circle" and "Squared-Circle" are two seperate points to address, as the first post observes "Square-Circle".

The Square-Circle effectively observe two terms as 1 term and in these respects is an observation of relation between parts as a part in itself...hence the image is correct.

A "Squared" circle observes the past tense of a verb where the circle is effectively being squared. The Squaring of Circle, which is the common manner for determining Pi within history, observes that as Pi is infinite the squaring of a circle in itself is infinite. Considering observing the an infinite, such as a squared circle, in the past tense observes inherent boundaries through the past tense in the respect the past is a set limit in many respects, a negative boundary is observed in the respect 3.14159... (or the visual image of a squared circle) is defined by infinity acting as a negative definition in the respect the form is limited through "lack of further definition"...however considering this negative definition observe this negative nature as formless the squared circle is both defined (as is) and not defined (what maybe) considering the limits of the past exist dually to a potential future which effectively is formless through time itself. In these respect the squared circle is an observation of a medial boundary of movement as two parts (active movement of squaring and no movement of constant circle) which exist as 1 in themselves.

Don't waste your time beating round the bush.

The main principle here is the Law of Non-Contradiction i.e.

A circle cannot be a square at the same time and same sense.
A circle cannot be a non-circle and a square a non-square at the same time and same sense.

Some try to use paraconsistent logic to overcome the LNC but that invoke different senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

The picture does not show the "square" being a circle in the same time in the same sense as both exist through eachother as an object of relation. The picture above shows a figure of geometric relations which exists as a thing in itself. A "square-circle" is a unit of 2 relations (square and circle) and in these respects no contradiction occurs.

The circle is a non-circle through the square (considering the square, along with all geometric figures) is a grade of the circle.
The square is a non-square through the circle (considering the circle is a square without angles) is a grade of the square.

Either way one seeks to define the square of circle, the foundational measuring point of the one allows the other to exist as a grade of the prior.

Triadic logic, in the basic hegelian sense, can be applied where the percievably contradictory object exists as is and the contradictory aspect of the square and circle can exist in the same time and same place considering the angles of the square and circumference of the point both extend from the 0d points which form the foundations of both. In these respects the square and circle exist through the 0d space which form them as this void is a common median.

The law of non-contradiction is addressed on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24403

and can be observed as "dually" negating itself.

You are beating around the bush again.
Note this,



It is a picture of old-young lady.
It is the same as you throwing in an image of a square with a circle inside.
With a picture one can write and draw any picture.
One paper one can write 1 + 1 = 5.
Or one can draw a human with elephant head can called that an elephant man.

The fact is in reality there is no such thing as a square which is a circle at the same time and sense.

Many had tried to counter the law of non-contradiction and I have read many of them.
None of them have been proven to be true. All of them involve some sort of deception and conflation of the senses/perspective.

[Eodnhoj7]

Don't waste your time beating round the bush.

The main principle here is the Law of Non-Contradiction i.e.

A circle cannot be a square at the same time and same sense.
A circle cannot be a non-circle and a square a non-square at the same time and same sense.

Some try to use paraconsistent logic to overcome the LNC but that invoke different senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

The picture does not show the "square" being a circle in the same time in the same sense as both exist through eachother as an object of relation. The picture above shows a figure of geometric relations which exists as a thing in itself. A "square-circle" is a unit of 2 relations (square and circle) and in these respects no contradiction occurs.

The circle is a non-circle through the square (considering the square, along with all geometric figures) is a grade of the circle.
The square is a non-square through the circle (considering the circle is a square without angles) is a grade of the square.

Either way one seeks to define the square of circle, the foundational measuring point of the one allows the other to exist as a grade of the prior.

Triadic logic, in the basic hegelian sense, can be applied where the percievably contradictory object exists as is and the contradictory aspect of the square and circle can exist in the same time and same place considering the angles of the square and circumference of the point both extend from the 0d points which form the foundations of both. In these respects the square and circle exist through the 0d space which form them as this void is a common median.

The law of non-contradiction is addressed on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24403

and can be observed as "dually" negating itself.

You are beating around the bush again.
Note this,



It is a picture of old-young lady.
It is the same as you throwing in an image of a square with a circle inside.
With a picture one can write and draw any picture.
One paper one can write 1 + 1 = 5.
Or one can draw a human with elephant head can called that an elephant man.

The fact is in reality there is no such thing as a square which is a circle at the same time and sense.

Many had tried to counter the law of non-contradiction and I have read many of them.
None of them have been proven to be true. All of them involve some sort of deception and conflation of the senses/perspective.

Contradiction is a deficiency in truth, and hence a deception, and to counter the law of non-contradiction it must be shown to be contradictory and hence nullify itself leaving only truth remaining.
And show the proof as the picture you provided is three pictures in one: And old woman, young woman and woman with the picture itself observing two perspectives synthesizing into a third, with the breakdown of the third being the foundation from which the two perspective arise. The picture observes a dualism as one angle of awareness is the negative of the other (the old woman is not a young woman, the young woman is not an old woman) with both perspectives being simultaneously positive and negative in the same time in different respects.
What we observe as a contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure where 1+1=5 contains rational elements in themselves, but the statement is deficient in balance. Hence 1+1=5 as a contradiction, is a 1+1=5 as a deficient statement, with 1+1=5 containing an infinite number of variables to observe its completion as 1x+1x=5, 1x+1y=5, etc as a deficient statement is one without a proper form or function and hence is deficient in any limits.





The problem of the law of non-contradiction is that it is contradictory in the respect that -P observes a statement of deficiency where -P observes an absence of P and fundamentally exists if and only if P exists with P existing fundamentally as infinite variables in itself.

In these respects while P cannot equal -P, -P exists if and only if there is P, hence the law of non-contradiction is a law about deficiency and effectively observes a dualism between positive and negative values.

These values exist fundamentally as an observation of relation where P is observed if and only if there is -P and viceversa as a positive defines a negative and a negative cannot be observed without a positive.

In these respects the law of non-contradiction observes a dualism of “+” and “-“ existing through P as a neutral medial variable which P is the limit through which “+” and “-“ exist as limits and simultaneously unlimited in the respect “P” is a variable conducive to infinity.


The P, as a variable, effectively takes the place of infinity and in these respects the law of non-contradiction observes a dualism of positive infinity and negative infinity where this negative infinity, as a statement of relation of one infinity relative to another, necessitates multiple infinities existing within infinity. The reason for this is a deficiency in infinity is still an infinity, but observes a separation of infinity under multiple infinities as a deficiency in infinity observes a separation of infinity. However infinity cannot be separated without this act of separation resulting in multiple infinities. These multiple infinities effectively exist as ratios of the 1 infinity as unity, with these multiple infinities (while infinite) observing finiteness as the relation of parts. In these respects this negation of P, as negative infinity, is a relativistic statement observing a relation of parts as a negative is fundamentally an act of separation.
These multiple infinities within infinity effectively observes that infinite exists simultaneously as a temporal finite reality relative to the 1 infinity it composes. In these respects finiteness is the relation of multiple infinities with this multiplicity observing each infinity as simultaneously positive and negative at the same time in different respects where one positive infinity is the negative of another and vice versa.
The statement of P=P observes an inherent sense of separation in the respect that equality of variable to itself observes a separation in locality as what is unified cannot be equal to itself unless it exists through multiple localities. We can observe the variable of P existing in multiple localities within the statement of “P=P” as the equality sign observes P as directed both to the left and right of it and is effectively replicated through “=” as an observation of relation.



This separation of P through P=P effectively observes (P=P)= -P as this equality is a deficiency of P, with (P=P)؞-P observing P=P being separate from -P. In further terms P=P directs itself toward -P as the separation of P through P=P is through P as P negating itself where the separation of P is an absence of P. -P as a deficiency of P, exist through P fundamentally being separated, in turn observe P being directed back towards (P=P).
In these respects (P=P) ⇄ -P where relativistically speaking one cannot exist without the other and the positive and negative values inevitably lead one being directed to another through the variable (P in this case).

In simpler terms to say 1=1 observes two 1’s as 1 and 2 where this separation of the 1 observes -1 as the limit of separation. The equality of 1 is the separation of 1 with equality as “=” existing if and only if there are multiple 1’s. Equality in these respects is a statement of relation as separation where this separation of quantities is subject to quantification itself.
So 1=1 as 1 statement is reduced to 1 through the separation implied by “=” as -1. In these respects the law of non-contradiction observing P does not equal -P observes P and -P as fundamentally connected through a dualism in one respect under P as this absence of equality observes an absence as separation. In a separate respect P does not equal -P is a contradiction as P=P effectively exists as -P.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are beating around the bush again.
Note this,



It is a picture of old-young lady.
It is the same as you throwing in an image of a square with a circle inside.
With a picture one can write and draw any picture.
One paper one can write 1 + 1 = 5.
Or one can draw a human with elephant head can called that an elephant man.

The fact is in reality there is no such thing as a square which is a circle at the same time and sense.

Many had tried to counter the law of non-contradiction and I have read many of them.
None of them have been proven to be true. All of them involve some sort of deception and conflation of the senses/perspective.

Contradiction is a deficiency in truth, and hence a deception, and to counter the law of non-contradiction it must be shown to be contradictory and hence nullify itself leaving only truth remaining.

And show the proof as the picture you provided is three pictures in one: And old woman, young woman and woman with the picture itself observing two perspectives synthesizing into a third, with the breakdown of the third being the foundation from which the two perspective arise.
The picture observes a dualism as one angle of awareness is the negative of the other (the old woman is not a young woman, the young woman is not an old woman) with both perspectives being simultaneously positive and negative in the same time in different respects.

You are beating around the bush again.

In the ordinary sense, the simple point is a young women [age 20] cannot be an old woman [age 80] at the same time and in the same sense.

There are rare cases where a young person could have accelerated the aging process as if she is 80 years old. But this is not in the same sense and context of the ordinary sense.

What you are trying to do is to justify p and -p could be the same at most in time, but never in the same sense.
Without beating around the bush with limits, etc. show me simple examples where the Law of non-contradiction can be countered?

[Eugene Glus]

1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Yep. But what does it prove? That God lies somewhere?

It sounds like that firstly it's necessary for all scientists to disprove an existence of God. Where's the role of God himself? He needs to put some activity to help someone to find him. Instead of his appearance through the world or in the world, we can see many his followers, of all kinds, which are interpreting some natural processes as divine influence.

The scientific method is a proof in itself because of its form and function with this form and function observing the same limits which can be observed in definitions of God/Divinity.

Being equipped the scientific method you can prove everything if you put non-existed things to the premises.
You can prove something if you put real things, not unreal ones into the first conditions. The real things are things which are at least non-contradictions. As soon as the existence of God is a contradiction to this World, you can put such deities to get sane results.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are beating around the bush again.
Note this,



It is a picture of old-young lady.
It is the same as you throwing in an image of a square with a circle inside.
With a picture one can write and draw any picture.
One paper one can write 1 + 1 = 5.
Or one can draw a human with elephant head can called that an elephant man.

The fact is in reality there is no such thing as a square which is a circle at the same time and sense.

Many had tried to counter the law of non-contradiction and I have read many of them.
None of them have been proven to be true. All of them involve some sort of deception and conflation of the senses/perspective.

Contradiction is a deficiency in truth, and hence a deception, and to counter the law of non-contradiction it must be shown to be contradictory and hence nullify itself leaving only truth remaining.

And show the proof as the picture you provided is three pictures in one: And old woman, young woman and woman with the picture itself observing two perspectives synthesizing into a third, with the breakdown of the third being the foundation from which the two perspective arise.
The picture observes a dualism as one angle of awareness is the negative of the other (the old woman is not a young woman, the young woman is not an old woman) with both perspectives being simultaneously positive and negative in the same time in different respects.

You are beating around the bush again.

In the ordinary sense, the simple point is a young women [age 20] cannot be an old woman [age 80] at the same time and in the same sense.

There are rare cases where a young person could have accelerated the aging process as if she is 80 years old. But this is not in the same sense and context of the ordinary sense.

What you are trying to do is to justify p and -p could be the same at most in time, but never in the same sense.
Without beating around the bush with limits, etc. show me simple examples where the Law of non-contradiction can be countered?

Actually a woman can be both young and old when viewed as a timeline relative to other timelines, considering young and old are polar duals connected through the woman as a timeline in herself.

Actually all logic is an observation of limits; hence the observation of limits is an observation of the foundations of logic itself...don't have to beat around the bush when beating the seed of a bush into the ground.

Something without "limits"?

The above statement about the woman.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually a woman can be both young and old when viewed as a timeline relative to other timelines, considering young and old are polar duals connected through the woman as a timeline in herself.

Actually all logic is an observation of limits; hence the observation of limits is an observation of the foundations of logic itself...don't have to beat around the bush when beating the seed of a bush into the ground.

Something without "limits"?

The above statement about the woman.

That is my point, a woman can be both young and old at the same time but not in the same perspective and senses.

In terms of the same chronology and age, a young woman [20 years old] cannot be an old woman [80 years old].

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,
-wiki

In this case you are introducing different senses or perspective thus LNC applies.

Get it?

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually a woman can be both young and old when viewed as a timeline relative to other timelines, considering young and old are polar duals connected through the woman as a timeline in herself.

Actually all logic is an observation of limits; hence the observation of limits is an observation of the foundations of logic itself...don't have to beat around the bush when beating the seed of a bush into the ground.

Something without "limits"?

The above statement about the woman.

That is my point, a woman can be both young and old at the same time but not in the same perspective and senses.

In terms of the same chronology and age, a young woman [20 years old] cannot be an old woman [80 years old].

Actually through picture and "memory" (as memory is composed of sensory knowledge) they can be.

Time is relative and a woman is never really x years old exactly when one continually breaks down the exact moment of time.

So to compare one exact moment in time to another is effectively futile in pin pointing an exact moment. The reason I say this is because time is a localization of movement and while the nanosecond exists as as many relative to the second, the nanosecond exists as 1 relative to a smaller scale of measurement.

In these respect time is localization and all phenomena that exist through time exist as localities relative to other localities. In these respects the woman can be multiple ages relative to other parts.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,
-wiki

In this case you are introducing different senses or perspective thus LNC applies.

Get it?

Do you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually a woman can be both young and old when viewed as a timeline relative to other timelines, considering young and old are polar duals connected through the woman as a timeline in herself.

Actually all logic is an observation of limits; hence the observation of limits is an observation of the foundations of logic itself...don't have to beat around the bush when beating the seed of a bush into the ground.

Something without "limits"?

The above statement about the woman.

That is my point, a woman can be both young and old at the same time but not in the same perspective and senses.

In terms of the same chronology and age, a young woman [20 years old] cannot be an old woman [80 years old].

Actually through picture and "memory" (as memory is composed of sensory knowledge) they can be.

Time is relative and a woman is never really x years old exactly when one continually breaks down the exact moment of time.

So to compare one exact moment in time to another is effectively futile in pin pointing an exact moment. The reason I say this is because time is a localization of movement and while the nanosecond exists as as many relative to the second, the nanosecond exists as 1 relative to a smaller scale of measurement.

In these respect time is localization and all phenomena that exist through time exist as localities relative to other localities. In these respects the woman can be multiple ages relative to other parts.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,
-wiki

In this case you are introducing different senses or perspective thus LNC applies.

Get it?

Do you?

You are beating around the bush again
and introducing new perspective and contexts from the one I am asking from.

I would say your deflection to other context is a very stupid idea.

Say, you are 20 years old.
There is a gate with a sign "For Old People Only" [conventionally understood as above 65] to queue and avoid the long queue for example food stamps, rations, etc..
You will join the queue of older people because, to you are are also 'old' by your twisting thinking of defining yourself as 'old' and at the same time young.
You will expect other younger people to join you because they are also 'old.'