Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 9539
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Dontaskme »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:44 am
"Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Then shut up hypocrite.
VA will never shut up while VA identifies with the image in the mirror to be VA's real face.

VA is just another performing seal.

VA doesn't see that there are many on this forum that are already one step ahead of VA and they already live in a place of perfect peace.

VA forgets that in order to enter that place one first has to leave the seal outside, but VA loves to fish, so be it. What we feed will grow, what we don't will die. And VA doesn't want to die.

VA likes to be the locum philosophy now forums master physician informing everyone the solution to deal with their life; even when they already KNOW how to do that since the information is all over the innernet.




.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:44 am
"Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Then shut up hypocrite.
VA will never shut up while VA identifies with the image in the mirror to be VA's real face.

VA is just another performing seal.

VA doesn't see that there are many on this forum that are already one step ahead of VA and they already live in a place of perfect peace.

VA forgets that in order to enter that place one first has to leave the seal outside, but VA loves to fish, so be it. What we feed will grow, what we don't will die. And VA doesn't want to die.

VA likes to be the locum philosophy now forums master physician informing everyone the solution to deal with their life; even when they already KNOW how to do that since the information is all over the innernet.




.
Quite frankly I find his stance so obscure I cannot figure what he is trying to push, at least I provide fallacies (specifical the munchausseen/agrippa trillema) and archetypes as spatial forms as grounded assumptions. Even the act of assuming and being assumed is expressed through archetypical spatial forms.

I mean how can you lie about assumptions without making an assumption?...its a regressive spiral, a spatial archetype.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:36 am Are you joking?

By your, so called, "logic" here; That the unicorn is impossible to exist are real is one example representing all empirical things. This is beyond logic. This is just plain ridiculousness. Unless of course you mean some other thing?
It is possible for a unicorn [if define as horse with a single horn] to exists because the variables concern are empirically possible. This is a matter of awaiting for the empirical evidence to justify it.
However to insist an absolutely perfect unicorn as real exists would be impossible because 'absolutely perfect' it not applicable to empirical things.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:19 amI ask you to show me one empirical thing that can be absolutely perfect.
And I have SHOWN you one thing. But you will NOT LOOK AT It.

That is; Thee Universe.

How many times do I have to tell you.
You have mentioned that many times but that is your assertion without any justification.
Kant had demonstrated God, The Soul, The Whole Universe are the ultimate ideas [thing-in-themselves] that are impossible to be real [empirically + philosophically].
Kant argument is very complex, I will not go into it until you have read his argument.

But one point is, parts [space, stars, planets, blackholes, etc.] of the Universe are empirical possible, but The-Whole-Universe that is absolutely perfect cannot be an empirical concept. Therefore The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.
One can think of an absolutely perfect Whole-Universe but it is impossible to real and realizable.

One limitation is there is no way to verify a Whole-Universe because humans cannot stand out of the Whole-Universe to take an independent view to justify its existence. It is worst if anyone were to try to justify whether the Whole-Universe is absolute perfect or not.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:19 amThe principle as I had explained above is;
No empirical thing can be absolutely perfect.
Whatever is empirical as real cannot be absolutely perfect.
This is invalid, unsound, irrational, illogical, and is also probably close to being perfectly circular. That is; "No empirical thing can be absolutely perfect BECAUSE and SO whatever is empirical as real can not be absolutely perfect".

I would say that if that is NOT a perfect circle, then it is close enough to being one. Now, that we have finished with the absolutely absurd, let us LOOK AT this even further. "No empirical thing can be absolutely perfect" is ONLY your view and BELIEF. It is NOT an actual unambiguous, irrefutable fact.
Yes it is based on my belief.
However my belief is based on the confidence in Scientific truths as the most objective knowledge of reality available and this is enforced by philosophical proper plus critical thinking.

If you ever bring arguments and evidence to claim an absolutely perfect God/Universe exists, I will rely on reputable scientists to test your claims for its empirical foundation, then I will apply philosophical and critical thinking to verify those findings.

On the other hand, what you are relying on is merely subjective beliefs based on your own personal experiences which is not justified at all.
However I am very familiar with your claims which is claimed by many others who are mentally ill and others [drug addicts, meditators, the brain damage, etc.].
If you do NOT see the Universe, Itself, as being absolute AND perfect, then so be it. But just because you do not see It that way, then that does NOT mean that it is not absolute AND perfect.
I have explained above why The-Universe-in-itself as absolute and perfect is impossible to be real.
Also, what do you mean by; 'empirical thing'? Do you just mean a 'physical thing'?
I have already provided the definition of 'empirical.' Empirical things are things [physical or otherwise] which can be justified as scientifically real.
Since Science is the best objective basis for reality but not 100% reliable, it need to be reinforced with critical thinking and philosophy proper.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:19 amNote my argument;
  • 1. Whatever is empirical as real cannot be absolutely perfect.
    2. God is an absolute perfect entity
    3. Therefore God cannot be empirically real.
I am getting VERY SICK AND TIRED of "noting your argument", AND also getting very sick and tired of THEN having to explain to you, once again, that it is NOT a 'sound AND valid argument'.

Note when you formulate a 'sound AND valid argument', then I want to SEE it, okay?

Until then all you are doing is expressing your views and BELIEFS only, and just calling them 'arguments'.
Who cares whether you are VERY SICK AND TIRED in this case.

What counts in this forum is proper and sound argument.
You cannot dispute my above argument is not a proper syllogism.
I believe the premises above are sound, it you think they are not, then give your proper counter arguments?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:19 amYou have given no justifications supported by evidence nor proof.
Yet some "other" people instantly SEE and also say that the Universe is absolute AND perfect.

But as I have ALREADY explained to you ENOUGH TIMES now. You are NOT capable of SEEING the justifications supported by evidence AND proof BECAUSE your OWN BELIEFS will NOT allow you to SEE the actual Truth of things.

Your OWN BELIEFS will only allow you to SEE those things that CONFIRM your already BIASES.
Yes, there are 'other' people who instantly SEE and also say that the Universe is absolute AND perfect, BUT they are mentally ill ranging from serious to mild, they have consumed hallucinogens, had brain damage, took drugs, meditated, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

While there are 'other' people who believe as you do, their experiences are confined to only their brain and body. All of them are unable to justify what they claim is empirically real nor possible.

Kant had explained those who claimed a real absolute perfect God are deluded by pseudo logic. I have extended to explain the fundamental basis for the theists insistence God exists as real is due to psychology.

As explained above, it is not my own beliefs but I relied heavily on Scientific beliefs and philosophy-proper plus critical thinking.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:19 amAll you do is making a personal subjective claim which is similar to what the mentally ills are claiming.
How can such a claim be credible at all?
LOL

The EXACT SAME thing is being said about 'YOU', veritas aequitas, are you at all AWARE OF THIS FACT?

The very thing that you accuse me of doing is the very thing that 'you' ARE DOING.
Nope!
As explained I am not making any personal subjective claims but rather relied on Scientific truths and philosophical-proper and critical thinking [notable from Kant].
By the way 'personal subjective' claims CAN BE credible, IF, and WHEN, they are backed up with evidence AND proofs.
Yes, that was happened to, for example, Einstein theory and other scientific theory.

However the criteria is for whatever the personal subjective beliefs to be credible, they must first be empirically possible and testable fundamentally by the scientific method.
The idea of God as absolute perfect is merely a thought and is without any empirical element, thus impossible to be real as a starter.

I have quoted this many time, read it carefully and noting each critical term therein;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and
    by means of which [those syllogisms] we conclude from something which we know
    to something else of which we have no Concept, and
    to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion,
    we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
    B397
The above imply, you have a personal subjective beliefs, but your mind relied on certain syllogism [pseudo] to conclude a thought of no empirical basis and no concept, by deception of an illusion to something real of objective reality.
The PERFECT physical Universe/God exists. The evidence AND proof is right HERE right NOW.
But if you can NOT see It and/or keep MISSING It, then there is NOTHING else I can do.
If the Universe, Itself, is NOT big and ABSOLUTE enough for you to notice It AND accept It, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else that would suffice.
Also, If you do NOT see the PERFECTNESS of the Universe, Itself, then that is fine.

Obviously you are NEVER going to SEE some thing, which you BELIEVE does NOT exist.
Age: But if you can NOT see It and/or keep MISSING It, then there is NOTHING else I can do.

This one of the most philosophically and scientifically stupid statement one can make in a philosophical statement.

If you have such a belief and keep it to yourself, there is no issue.

But the most terrible consequence of the above belief is when such as "The PERFECT physical Universe/God exist" is taken to be "real" in terms of a real God [will answer prayers] send down a book that command believers to war against and kill non-believers for the reason they are disbelievers.
What I stated above has been been happening for thousands of years and millions had been killed in the past, still going on in the present and will continue in the future.

When you insist on your personal subjective beliefs of a PERFECT physical Universe/God exist" you are indirectly providing moral support to those evil and violent theists, thus you are indirectly complicit their evil and violent acts.
All these is because you are selfish is comforting the subliminal pains arising out the inherent existential crisis.
You are selfish is caring only for your existential and emotional need but don't give a damn [insufficient empathy] to the evil and violent consequences you and the likes that is dumped on humanity.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
It is a very subtle counter and the point is humans are co creators of the Universe whilst humans are emergence
One point is it is impossible to take the human conditions out of the equation of what is reality

why human beings jumped to the conclusion there is a mind independent universe is due to ones psychology
While human beings are a part of observable reality they are not at all responsible for its creation
A mind dependent Universe is the one that is psychologically motivated not a mind independent one
There is no scientific reason as to why human beings were responsible for the creation of the Universe

Biology cannot have come before chemistry or physics because organisms are more complex than objects
So physics and chemistry had to first create the dead stars that contain the elements we are all made from
What you are claiming is common sense [higher]. But if one were to reflect more deeply in the philosophical perspective, one will 'see' the alternative views.

If there are no human beings would there be NO biology, chemistry, physics, dead stars and whatever?
To answer yes or no also ultimately rest on human beings to answer the above.
As such reality cannot be independent of the human conditions.

When humans rely upon biology, chemistry, physics [the most objective knowledge available], there is no way these faculties of knowledge can establish what is 100% real or whether the universe precede human existence.

It is not a purely scientific basis why human beings are co-creators of the universe.
Btw, the term is mind co-dependent or interdependent universe, it is Not mind-dependent.
Mind-dependent imply it is mind-brain and human that created the universe like a person sculpturing and creating some statue. This is not the case.

Mind co-dependent or interdependent mean we cannot state whether it is the universe that created humans being or human-being created the universe.
The term 'created' in this case implied agency as if there is an agent/entity that is doing the creation. This is how this idea of agency is converted to the idea of a God as creator. This is due to psychology as Hume's claim causality is psychologically driven.

Mind co-dependent or interdependent represent 'emergence' i.e. the universe and human beings are given objects arising from emergence as co-dependent or interdependent of each other.

One point is, when humans are being dependent on the Universe, there is a bondage and dependence to something.
On the basis of Mind co-dependent or interdependent there is no one-sided dependence thus the human being is free in this sense.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:34 am Any marble no matter how perfect it is claimed is in reality imperfect which can easily be shown when the marble surface is viewed with a electron's microscope.
You are just stating the bloody obvious. It's like saying a mountain is a mole hill seen from far away, but at close range it's everest.

Imperfection can only be known in relation to it's opposite. Opposites have to exist in the same instant, one with the knowing.

There is no perfect nor imperfect in any concept known, for that which is KNOWN knows nothing of it's reality.

So that which seems imperfect is actually perfect as well.
As I had suggested you should consult a psychiatrist and get medicated.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The most you can is to THINK of an absolute perfect Universe as an idea which cannot be empirically based
Since an absolute perfect Universe cannot be empirically based it cannot be real or possibly real
The Universe is defined as ALL THAT EXISTS whether or not such existence can be empirically demonstrated
To define it any other way would invalidate the meaning of the word because it cannot mean anything else

An absolute perfect Universe is just the Universe - nothing more nothing less
So absolute and perfect here are simply referring to the totality of existence
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Science is the best objective basis for reality but not I00 per cent reliable it need to be reinforced with critical thinking and philosophy
Science is unreliable because it is inductive and relies on evidence that is incomplete or partial
But reinforcing it with critical thinking and philosophy is not going to make it any more reliable
The only two things that will do that are either more evidence or disproof through falsification
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The most you can is to THINK of an absolute perfect Universe as an idea which cannot be empirically based
Since an absolute perfect Universe cannot be empirically based it cannot be real or possibly real
The Universe is defined as ALL THAT EXISTS whether or not such existence can be empirically demonstrated
To define it any other way would invalidate the meaning of the word because it cannot mean anything else

An absolute perfect Universe is just the Universe - nothing more nothing less
So absolute and perfect here are simply referring to the totality of existence
As I had stated above one can THINK and DEFINE the Universe as absolutely perfect.
But if this is the case, then such an absolute perfect Universe cannot be real.

However to describe the universe is ALL THAT EXIST would imply all that [things] are empirical. If they are empirical, they cannot be absolutely perfect. Note the meaning of exist.
As such one cannot conflate an absolutely perfect universe [non-empirical] with the universe of all-that-exist [empirical].

Similarly, one cannot conflate an absolute perfect God [non-empirical] with an empirical based God.

The absolute perfect God which is the ontological God is the preferred ultimate God and such a God is impossible to be real because it does not have any empirical elements.

An empirical-based God, e.g. monkey-God, bearded-man-in-sky-God. brain-in-VAT-God, Neptune-Sea-God, etc. are possible as long as they are empirically-based.
If a god is an empirically-based God, then, it should be able to be tested empirically.
So the question is for the claimant to bring the empirical evidence to prove whatever the empirical God exists as real.
However, philosophically, one knows whilst such empirical gods are not impossible, the point of possibility is merely a token [0.0000000------01%] because there is no certainty and perfection within the empirical world.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Science is the best objective basis for reality but not I00 per cent reliable it need to be reinforced with critical thinking and philosophy
Science is unreliable because it is inductive and relies on evidence that is incomplete or partial
But reinforcing it with critical thinking and philosophy is not going to make it any more reliable
The only two things that will do that are either more evidence or disproof through falsification
According to Popper [which I agree], scientific theories are at best polished conjectures subject to various assumptions, limitations and the scientific method.

Critical thinking and philosophy will not make it more truthful but both will definitely strengthen the reliability.

With critical thinking and philosophy;
  • 1. We can prevent Scientism
    2. We can differentiate science-proper from pseudo-science
    3. Scientists do not differentiate deduction from induction, but philosophy does.
    4. Note the consideration between Science as philosophical realism versus P. anti-realism.
    5. There are many other philosophical tools to ensure whatever is the scientific theory, one do not get entangled in dogmatism.
    6. There is also the moral and ethical consideration for scientific theories.
    7. Others
So critical thinking and philosophy can reinforce and strengthen the reliability of scientific theories.

By noting the underlying assumptions, limitations and principles based on critical thinking and philosophy, we should be able to understand the limit of the various scientific theories and ensure they do not get abused into the theological.

Note the common approach of theologians who used scientific theories to prove the existence of God which is based on the fallacy of equivocating the empirical with the non-empirical.

This why Kant had to introduce the idea of the noumenon as a limit to the empirical to prevent the empirical being abused and conflated with the transcendental to generate the idea of the illusory God.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
However to describe the universe is ALL THAT EXISTS would imply all that [ things ] are empirical
Whatever actually exists does so entirely independent of any demonstration or verification
Things that cannot be demonstrated or verified still exist as physical objects or organisms
Existence is not conditional on human beings being aware of every single thing that exists
Human knowledge of ALL THAT EXISTS is simply infinitesimal and so can never be absolute
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is also the moral and ethical consideration for scientific theories
That is a matter for scientists as moral beings but not science
For science is strictly amoral and so it does not differentiate between moral and immoral
Scientific knowledge is neither good or bad - it is how it is used that determines its value
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
By noting the underlying assumptions and limitations and principles based on critical thinking and philosophy we should
be able to understand the limit of the various scientific theories and ensure they do not get abused into the theological

Note the common approach of theologians who used scientific theories to prove the existence of God which is based
on the fallacy of equivocating the empirical with the non empirical
Science is the study of observable phenomena and their properties and capabilities and nothing else
Therefore anyone who uses it to either prove or disprove God can have no idea what it actually does
Science has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non existence of anything metaphysical

One either believes or disbelieves in God or thinks or does not think God exists but science cannot help either way
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
However to describe the universe is ALL THAT EXISTS would imply all that [ things ] are empirical
Whatever actually exists does so entirely independent of any demonstration or verification
Things that cannot be demonstrated or verified still exist as physical objects or organisms
Existence is not conditional on human beings being aware of every single thing that exists
Human knowledge of ALL THAT EXISTS is simply infinitesimal and so can never be absolute
"Whatever actually exists" is meaningless from the philosophical perspective.

Kant argued existence is not a predicate.

The term "X exists" imply a object-copula-predicate.
'Exist' is merely the copula that combine the object with the predicate.

Thus the term 'apples exist' often taken for granted is very loaded with a range of implied elements and the relevant predicates, i.e.

'apples exist as [the following predicates]
  • 1. Can be proven scientifically as real.
    2. Has various empirical attributes, color, solidness, molecules, atoms, etc.
    3. Identified as a specie of fruit.
    4. Within a type of apples.
    5. Whatever the relevant empirical elements.
    6. Supported by philosophical and critical thinking.
In addition to the above the existence of the apple is subject the contention between the philosophical realist versus the philosophical anti-realist position.

Therefore one cannot merely insist 'whatever actually exists' without subjecting one's claim to the above conditions.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:32 am "Whatever actually exists does so entirely independent of any demonstration or verification"
In the addition to the above constraints I raised above note the following;

Note the various philosophical models of what is the universe;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe# ... cal_models
You may be familiar but I suggest you read the below;
  • The earliest Greek philosophers noted that appearances can be deceiving, and sought to understand the underlying reality behind the appearances.
    In particular, they noted the ability of matter to change forms (e.g., ice to water to steam) and several philosophers proposed that all the physical materials in the world are different forms of a single primordial material, or arche.
    The first to do so was Thales, who proposed this material to be water. Thales' student, Anaximander, proposed that everything came from the limitless apeiron.
    Anaximenes proposed the primordial material to be air on account of its perceived attractive and repulsive qualities that cause the arche to condense or dissociate into different forms.
    Anaxagoras proposed the principle of Nous (Mind), while Heraclitus proposed fire (and spoke of logos).
    Empedocles proposed the elements to be earth, water, air and fire. His four-element model became very popular.
    Like Pythagoras, Plato believed that all things were composed of number, with Empedocles' elements taking the form of the Platonic solids.
    Democritus, and later philosophers—most notably Leucippus—proposed that the Universe is composed of indivisible atoms moving through a void (vacuum), although Aristotle did not believe that to be feasible because air, like water, offers resistance to motion. Air will immediately rush in to fill a void, and moreover, without resistance, it would do so indefinitely fast.
All along the Philosophical Realists like you are assuming there is something real that is independent of demonstration and verification.
Even at the present we have ended with what is independently real which could be a particle or a wave no sight of certainty what a thing really is, i.e. the thing-in-itself independent of demonstration and verification.
Kant had proven the thing-in-itself is a transcendental illusion and philosophical realists like you are chasing an illusion.

This is why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution and propose we forget about chasing for a thing that exists as real and independent of demonstration and verification.

Kant however claimed it would be more realistic to view what the thing is as co-dependent with the subject, i.e. human conditions - the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition.
  • A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
    If Intuition [human conditions] must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
    but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
    B-xvi
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is also the moral and ethical consideration for scientific theories
That is a matter for scientists as moral beings but not science
For science is strictly amoral and so it does not differentiate between moral and immoral
Scientific knowledge is neither good or bad - it is how it is used that determines its value
That is what I meant, whatever the scientific theory, we need to rely on philosophy and critical thinking to add more value to it in terms of morality and others.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
By noting the underlying assumptions and limitations and principles based on critical thinking and philosophy we should
be able to understand the limit of the various scientific theories and ensure they do not get abused into the theological

Note the common approach of theologians who used scientific theories to prove the existence of God which is based
on the fallacy of equivocating the empirical with the non empirical
Science is the study of observable phenomena and their properties and capabilities and nothing else
Therefore anyone who uses it to either prove or disprove God can have no idea what it actually does
Science has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non existence of anything metaphysical

One either believes or disbelieves in God or thinks or does not think God exists but science cannot help either way
That is my point against the point in the OP, i.e.
The Perfect Empirical God DO NOT Exists because as I have trying to show,
the empirical and science goes hand in hand.
Since you agree 'Science cannot help with God in anyway', then God cannot be a perfect empirical entity.
Post Reply