The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:15 am

The age of the observable Universe can be calculated by the light coming from the red shift of the oldest stars
The age of the observable Universe can also be calculated from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
These physical phenomena are evidence [ not proof ] that the observable Universe actually exists and is real

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
In addition, it is not an oddity, the term "prove" in relation to scientific proofs is a common usage among many people.
The term "prove" in relation to science is predominantly used by non-scientists. And when it's abused - the errors are inconsequential.

Scientists constantly attempt to correct this mis-conception, but there are bigger fish to fry usually.

Q.E.D
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
What critical with the term 'prove' associated with Science is the context.
So, this scientist is telling you that you are misrepresenting the scientific method.
And if you insist on using the word "prove" in the context of science you will have to clarify your meaning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
This is a linguistic issue and there are no absolutes in linguistics.
Thus is it stupid for anyone to insist 'proof' MUST be related only to mathematics.
There are also such a thing as a "corner case". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case

Normally I would not have a problem with you speaking of "proof" for the effectiveness of medicine. I can ignore the methodological error.
Normally I would not have a problem with you speaking of the expansion of "the universe". I can ignore the ontological error.
Normally I would not have a problem when you are speaking of the "existence" of bacteria. I can ignore the metaphysical error.

It is when you make the three errors together is that you have tripped over yourself.

To "prove the universe exists" is a corner case. Your tools do not work there.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:33 am, edited 4 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:24 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:15 am
The age of the observable Universe can be calculated by the light coming from the red shift of the oldest stars
That's not the "age of the universe". That's the age of the oldest stars.
The age of the oldest person alive today is about 120 years. That is not the age of humanity.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:15 am
The age of the observable Universe can also be calculated from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
That's not the age of the universe. That's the age of the CMB.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:15 am
These physical phenomena are evidence [ not proof ] that the observable Universe actually exists and is real
The evidence demonstrates nothing beyond itself. The phenomena we observe are just that - phenomena.

Any inference from there is a probabilistic guess.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2488
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:38 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
In addition, it is not an oddity, the term "prove" in relation to scientific proofs is a common usage among many people.
The term "prove" in relation to science is predominantly used by non-scientists. And when it's abused - the errors are inconsequential.

Scientists constantly attempt to correct this mis-conception, but there are bigger fish to fry usually.

Q.E.D
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
What critical with the term 'prove' associated with Science is the context.
So, this scientist is telling you that you are misrepresenting the scientific method.
And if you insist on using the word "prove" in the context of science you will have to clarify your meaning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:14 am
This is a linguistic issue and there are no absolutes in linguistics.
Thus is it stupid for anyone to insist 'proof' MUST be related only to mathematics.
There are also such a thing as a "corner case". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case

Normally I would not have a problem with you speaking of "proof" for the effectiveness of medicine. I can ignore the methodological error.
Normally I would not have a problem with you speaking of the expansion of "the universe". I can ignore the ontological error.
Normally I would not have a problem when you are speaking of the "existence" of bacteria. I can ignore the metaphysical error.

It is when you make the three errors together is that you have tripped over yourself.

To "prove the universe exists" is a corner case. Your tools do not work there.
Re the above, I don't give a damn what you think re the linguistic usage.
Wanna use your Glock-19 to settle the issue?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:38 am
Re the above, I don't give a damn what you think re the linguistic usage.
Who's talking about linguistics? It's an error in reasoning!

One would hope that you do "give a damn" and attempt to avoid such errors because your mouth keeps writing cheques your mind can't cash out.

But as I have already pointed out - ignorance is a choice.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:38 am
Wanna use your Glock-19 to settle the issue?
I have a Glock 19?

And why would I need to resort to violence when I can just humiliate you?
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Whatever term we assign for the conclusion of scientific theories or knowledge
the critical point is it must comply with requirement of the Scientific Methods
There is no such thing as conclusion in relation to scientific theories as any one of them which includes
the most rigorous ones could at any time be subject to potential falsification by subsequent evidence

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the twin pillars of twentieth century physics but one
of them [ at least ] will have to be significantly modified in order to accommodate Quantum Gravity
So even though both of these occupy the highest classification in science they are still not absolute

Newtons Universal Theory Of Gravitation is also a theory but it was subsequently falsified by General Relativity
Proof therefore cannot ever apply to science [ other than by disproof ] because evidence can never be complete

All theories including the most brutal and rigorous of all [ Evolution ] are only approximations of what is real
The map is not the territory no matter how accurate it is and science is an eternally self correcting discipline
The brutality of the scientific method [ the most brutal ever ] would be severely compromised if this was not so

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:01 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
The age of the observable Universe can also be calculated from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
The CMBR occurred only 380 000 years after the Big Bang so is a very reliable metric for dating the Universe
Light cannot travel beyond the CMBR because the Universes atmosphere before then was simply too opaque
But the difference between 380 000 and I3 . 72 billion in mathematical terms is so insignificant as to be academic

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2488
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:03 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Whatever term we assign for the conclusion of scientific theories or knowledge
the critical point is it must comply with requirement of the Scientific Methods
There is no such thing as conclusion in relation to scientific theories as any one of them which includes
the most rigorous ones could at any time be subject to potential falsification by subsequent evidence

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the twin pillars of twentieth century physics but one
of them [ at least ] will have to be significantly modified in order to accommodate Quantum Gravity
So even though both of these occupy the highest classification in science they are still not absolute

Newtons Universal Theory Of Gravitation is also a theory but it was subsequently falsified by General Relativity
Proof therefore cannot ever apply to science [ other than by disproof ] because evidence can never be complete

All theories including the most brutal and rigorous of all [ Evolution ] are only approximations of what is real
The map is not the territory no matter how accurate it is and science is an eternally self correcting discipline
The brutality of the scientific method [ the most brutal ever ] would be severely compromised if this was not so
There are no absolutes ever.
Thus it is never wrong for whatever to be 'proven' or 'concluded' to be tentative. It is even possible that accepted mathematical axioms could be changed, one can never be absolute certain about it.
It is well understood [by default] 'scientific knowledge' conclusions or proofs are subject to change upon availability of new justified evidences.

I don't see why 'conclusion' cannot be applied to the end of a phase or project as in a defined scientific experiment in accordance to the scientific method.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There are no absolutes
Thus it is never wrong for whatever to be proven or concluded to be tentative
Calling a proof tentative sounds positively oxymoronic and that is why science does not use such language
Every fact and law and theory adds to the body of knowledge accumulated over time but that never stops
Science is a process that can never be complete because omniscience cannot be acquired by finite brains

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:03 am
There are no absolutes ever.
Thus it is never wrong for whatever to be 'proven' or 'concluded' to be tentative. It is even possible that accepted mathematical axioms could be changed, one can never be absolute certain about it.
It is well understood [by default] 'scientific knowledge' conclusions or proofs are subject to change upon availability of new justified evidences.

I don't see why 'conclusion' cannot be applied to the end of a phase or project as in a defined scientific experiment in accordance to the scientific method.
OK. Let me use your language.

Suppose that science was to prove God tomorrow.

Would you then admit that God exists or would you reject God's existence based on the God-of-the-gaps counter-argument?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2488
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:51 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:03 am
There are no absolutes ever.
Thus it is never wrong for whatever to be 'proven' or 'concluded' to be tentative. It is even possible that accepted mathematical axioms could be changed, one can never be absolute certain about it.
It is well understood [by default] 'scientific knowledge' conclusions or proofs are subject to change upon availability of new justified evidences.

I don't see why 'conclusion' cannot be applied to the end of a phase or project as in a defined scientific experiment in accordance to the scientific method.
OK. Let me use your language.

Suppose that science was to prove God tomorrow.

Would that really be God or just a God of the gaps?
I have asserted the ultimate idea of God is NEVER empirical nor empirically possible, thus the idea of God ultimately cannot be proven via Science.

But if any theists are still claiming their God is 'a bearded man in the sky', then bring the related empirical evidences for Science to test and verify.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:51 am
I have asserted the ultimate idea of God is NEVER empirical nor empirically possible, thus the idea of God ultimately cannot be proven via Science.
The idea of the universe is not empirical or empirically possible.
The idea of the universe cannot be proven via Science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:51 am
But if any theists are still claiming their God is 'a bearded man in the sky', then bring the related empirical evidences for Science to test and verify.
If you insist that the universe exists please bring the related empirical evidence for Science to test and verify.

If the universe is a computer simulation allow me to introduce you to the linguistic term "Grey Beard".
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... ey%20beard
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2488
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There are no absolutes
Thus it is never wrong for whatever to be proven or concluded to be tentative
Calling a proof tentative sounds positively oxymoronic and that is why science does not use such language
Every fact and law and theory adds to the body of knowledge accumulated over time but that never stops
Science is a process that can never be complete because omniscience cannot be acquired by finite brains
Nope it is not an oxymoron, but mere going along with reality.
Note, if we are to accept there are no absolutes, then it would be humble to accept whatever knowledge we have is merely tentative, i.e. will change, since change is the only constant.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 am
Nope it is not an oxymoron, but mere going along with reality.
Note, if we are to accept there are no absolutes, then it would be humble to accept whatever knowledge we have is merely tentative, i.e. will change, since change is the only constant.
And it would be humble to accept that certain things are beyond the scope of induction. Like proofs.

You choose to forget that there is always the (ever so slight) possibility of error and so you don't bother to think through the consequences.

You ignore counter-factual thinking entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_thinking
And that's your bias.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2488
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:00 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:51 am
I have asserted the ultimate idea of God is NEVER empirical nor empirically possible, thus the idea of God ultimately cannot be proven via Science.
The idea of the universe is not empirical or empirically possible.
The idea of the universe cannot be proven via Science.
The idea of a universe that is created by a god is not empirically possible.

The universe that is described within the scientific and astronomy community is provable in theory just like the Big Bang Theory which cannot be tested.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:51 am
But if any theists are still claiming their God is 'a bearded man in the sky', then bring the related empirical evidences for Science to test and verify.
If you insist that the universe exists please bring the related empirical evidence for Science to test and verify.

If the universe is a computer simulation allow me to introduce you to the linguistic term "Grey Beard".
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... ey%20beard
The concept [not idea] of the universe that is described within the scientific and astronomy community is provable in theory just like the Big Bang Theory which cannot be tested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Veritas Aequitas and 2 guests