Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Skepdick]

There may indeed be "Big Questions": but in Atheism, there are no answers. So what's the point of any questions?

The point of questions without answers is Kobayashi Maru.

That's what all Philosophical questions amount to.

[Eodnhoj7]

There may indeed be "Big Questions": but in Atheism, there are no answers. So what's the point of any questions?

The point of questions without answers is Kobayashi Maru.

That's what all Philosophical questions amount to.

Questions determine the answers as only specific answers can occur within the question.

The questions are merely statements and one can just give answers as easily as one can ask questions in light of it being strictly definition from two separate angles.

[Immanuel Can]

Questions determine the answers as only specific answers can occur within the question.

Um...no.

This might sound profound to somebody...I'm not sure whom...but not to me. A question is an interrogative, and an answer is a declaration. A question is a request for information, and an answer is an attempt at provision of information. They're counterparts to each other, not the same thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Questions determine the answers as only specific answers can occur within the question.

Um...no.

This might sound profound to somebody...I'm not sure whom...but not to me. A question is an interrogative, and an answer is a declaration. A question is a request for information, and an answer is an attempt at provision of information. They're counterparts to each other, not the same thing.

Rofl...no.

Example:

"Is the sky blue?"

By asking the question I already form a proconcieved list of answers as well as limiting the definition of one variable (sky) through another (blue (ie "color")).

The question forms an assertion of variables and as such forms potential answers.

[Ginkgo]

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

Then change the definition.

'God' is a very complex metaphysical idea. Metaphysics is often being slandered as being religion. Does that mean we should not teach metaphysics?

What definition do you suggest?

Not all metaphysics is about God, but God is a metaphysical argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Example:

"Is the sky blue?"

By asking the question I already form a proconcieved list of answers as well as limiting the definition of one variable (sky) through another (blue (ie "color")).

The question forms an assertion of variables and as such forms potential answers.

It's purple. It's green. It's chartreuse. It's grey. It's not a "sky." You mean, "when." It's a turnip. Which "sky"? Why do you ask? Don't bother me. It only looks that way because of refraction. There is no real "sky," only outer space ...all these, and many more, are possible answers.

...In fact, there are any number of answers, sensible and nonsensical, that one can give to that question. The question does not create "a preconceived list" at all, nor even limit to one "variable" ( I think you mean "subject," but okay). Anyway, by definition, a variable is...variable! Meaning, it "varies." That means it's a placeholder for many things, not a single thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Example:

"Is the sky blue?"

By asking the question I already form a proconcieved list of answers as well as limiting the definition of one variable (sky) through another (blue (ie "color")).

The question forms an assertion of variables and as such forms potential answers.

It's purple. It's green. It's chartreuse. It's grey. It's not a "sky." You mean, "when." It's a turnip. Which "sky"? Why do you ask? Don't bother me. It only looks that way because of refraction. There is no real "sky," only outer space ...all these, and many more, are possible answers.

That "when" is defined by the variables itself as the variables are temporal/finite elements.

The transition of one variable to another necessitates a relation in time (ie sky is subject to color given certain relations, "outer" space is not.) as the relation of each variable as a temporal entity results in a temporal entity.

You cannot, and I am not saying this is what you are stating, seperate logic from temporality or modality.

...In fact, there are any number of answers, sensible and nonsensical, that one can give to that question.
Only upon further elaboration where the question expands context can the answers expand with it. The question itself has finite answers.


The question does not create "a preconceived list" at all, nor even limit to one "variable" ( I think you mean "subject," but okay). Anyway, by definition, a variable is...variable! Meaning, it "varies." That means it's a placeholder for many things, not a single thing.

"Preconcieved list of variables" is multiple variables.

So yes the question can have multiple answers as a set, but it still results in a set as the variables in the question determine the tautology which stems from them.

[Eodnhoj7]

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

Then change the definition.

'God' is a very complex metaphysical idea. Metaphysics is often being slandered as being religion. Does that mean we should not teach metaphysics?

What definition do you suggest?

Not all metaphysics is about God, but God is a metaphysical argument.

Being que being, where God is all being, necessitates and inherent element of divinity inseperable from it.

[Skepdick]

What definition do you suggest?

God - the highest symbol of mankind's pursuit for power.

Not all metaphysics is about God, but God is a metaphysical argument.

I didn't say all metaphysics is about God.
I said all metaphysics are religions.

Even the most popular metaphysic of 2019 - science.

In the scientific metaphysic a being like Doctor Manhattan is God.

[seeds]

If you were to teach that to that bunch of 17yos, how would you put that?

I assume you are talking about the teens mentioned in your earlier post to Tesla:

What has this to do with if God should be taught in school? What do you mean by teaching God? I kind of see 15 yos rolling eyes and sigh here...

Well, first of all, let’s realize that sighing and eye rolling is not limited to school kids, for there are plenty of crusty old materialists on forums such as this who not only roll their eyes when it comes to the topic of God, but also mess their Depends.

Anyway, as to your question,...

(and keeping in mind that this “searching for God in a classroom” business was Tesla's idea and not mine)

...I would present it as is - as a theory (with support material, of course) while trying to dodge the spitballs and rotten tomatoes.

What else would I do?

First of all you would have to make it understandable.

I acknowledge that my ideas are highly speculative and difficult to believe (impossible for some), and may indeed be completely wrong.

However, in what way are they not understandable to you?

I mean, look once again at the illustration...



...in combination with this illustration...



...and then realize that what it all very simply suggests is that:

1. We are each a familial replication of the living creative source of the universe, and...

2. We momentarily exist “in utero,” so to speak, as the “fetuses” of said source, and...

3. We are each imbued with the same creative potential as that source - a potential that will be fully revealed at the moment of death.

Easy-peasy.

(My apologies to Tesla for cluttering up his thread with my overused illustrations. It’s just that employing them in these endlessly recurring arguments helps me in making my points.)
_______

[Ginkgo]

What definition do you suggest?

God - the highest symbol of mankind's pursuit for power.

Not all metaphysics is about God, but God is a metaphysical argument.

I didn't say all metaphysics is about God.
I said all metaphysics are religions.

Even the most popular metaphysic of 2019 - science.

In the scientific metaphysic a being like Doctor Manhattan is God.

Not all metaphysics are religious. For example, string theory is a metaphysical theory that has nothing to do with religion.

[Skepdick]

Not all metaphysics are religious. For example, string theory is a metaphysical theory that has nothing to do with religion.

If they are not nomologically possible - they are religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility

[Ginkgo]

Not all metaphysics are religious. For example, string theory is a metaphysical theory that has nothing to do with religion.

If they are not nomologically possible - they are religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility

They are nomologically possible.

[Skepdick]

They are nomologically possible.

String produces no testable consequences and it is not even wrong.

Its current status is logical/metaphysical possibility. If you know how to make it empirical - let us know.

[Tesla]

They are nomologically possible.

String produces no testable consequences and it is not even wrong.

Its current status is logical/metaphysical possibility. If you know how to make it empirical - let us know.

so, would it then be beneficial to the whole of societies that children be given a more 'real' truth concerning God(s, religion, and science: via teaching a course concerning God(s) to attempt to define it scientifically which in my opinion, would add a healthy sense of skepticism while opening the door to new potentials in the future concerning the science of 'looking' for advanced consciousness wherever it may hide?