The Testable Deistic God

[Turtle]

Just an article about those dimensions that seem to be eluding you, Turtle: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070203103355.htm

 

If these hidden dimensions are smaller than anything we can devise a test for, but would have had a major impact on the universe back at the moment of the Big Bang when the universe itself was so small as to be sensitive to such small things like dimensions curled up into Yau-Calabi shapes, and we superimpose our 'imagined' dimensions on to the intial Big Bang and then fast-forward our model a goodly 14-15 billion years to the present day, and compare our modelled universe with the one we can see and it turns out they are identical, would that float your boat?

 

But please, Turtle, keep in mind that this is the Philosophy Forum. Here we can shoot the philosophical breeze. Or so I'm told. Good seeing you too, by the way. Now please sit down and take a deep breath before you unleash your untold fury...

 

:lol: Breathe, one, two... Lot's of 'mays', 'ifs', 'and's', and 'but's' there. To be sure I am as well versed in string/brane theory as any layman so I'm not entirely speaking out my sphincter. Having done considerable original mathematical research myself that produces pretty pictures, I am also well versed in the understanding that such imagery does not of necessity provide any predictive utility. While brane theory may come to some fruition such that it has evidentiary support, if it still poses more questions than it answers then it remains in the category of mental masturbation. (Otherwise called philosophy). You keep playing with that thing Son and you're going to wear it out! :lol:

 

Following your advisement I will continue breathing and not hold my breath over this.

[SaxonViolence]

Let us regress to the beginning of this post:

 

 

"A non-deistic "perfect" god creates all sorts of logical fallacies but most importantly the fallacy of holding belief in something that you cannot "prove or disprove" or will ever be able to "prove or disprove". So we're not talking about non-deistic gods, we're only talking about the ones we can test for....."

 

 

"Fallacies" and our standards of "Proof" are both largely the product of or Society's heavy reliance first on Aristotelean Logic and Standards for Rhetorical Soundness and secondly on the application of the Scientific Method.

 

Arguably, these are not the only tools of Cognition.

 

Many centuries have proven that these "Rules of Thought" can be applied fruitfully to many forms of Endeavor.

 

Well then, "Proven" to my Satisfaction.

 

Is Aristotelean Logic and The Scientific Method ALWAYS the best way to Examine Everything in our Lives?

 

Are there questions that Science cannot do a good job of Exploring?

 

Maybe there are Special Cases where Science and Logic are Exactly the Wrong Tools to use on an Issue.

 

Is this True? Or even Creditable?

 

Maybe. Maybe Not.

 

However,when you weigh the question, you have already stepped outside of Science and Into Metaphysics.

 

Science can't be used to Validate The Scientific Method anymore than you can lift yourself by your own Bootstraps.

 

What if God isn't "Rational"—at least not in any way that we understand?

 

What if there are a number of Logically Incompatible Axioms running our Universe on the Fundamental Level?

 

Sometimes we're frantically searching for ever bigger brighter lights to get a better view of Pure Darkness.

 

Or Not.

 

You don't have to believe in Paradox and Antimony...

 

But you can hardly analyze a Chess Match using the Rules of Checkers or Poker.

 

Hebrews 11

 

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

 

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

4...

 

5...

 

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

 

 

 

Saxon Violence

Edited February 18, 2014 by SaxonViolence

[Turtle]

Let us regress to the beginning of this post:

 

 

"A non-deistic "perfect" god creates all sorts of logical fallacies but most importantly the fallacy of holding belief in something that you cannot "prove or disprove" or will ever be able to "prove or disprove". So we're not talking about non-deistic gods, we're only talking about the ones we can test for....."

 

 

"Fallacies" and our standards of "Proof" are both largely the product of or Society's heavy reliance first on Aristotelean Logic and Standards for Rhetorical Soundness and secondly on the application of the Scientific Method.

 

Arguably, these are not the only tools of Cognition.

...

 

Saxon Violence

 

Well, I suppose we could just regress and resort to the good ol' saxon violence cognition model and go to simulated universe matrix array variable Indiana to kick your *** for shootin' off your mouth. How's that for irrational cogitation? That the kind of steppin' outside you have in mind? Pretty much what you're always explicitly or implicitly advocating so it should set just fine with you bein' a special case and all don't ya know. :hammer:

[cal]

No; that is not acceptable. :naughty: You made the claim(s), you must provide the backup.

You're asking me to provide sources for things generally known and accepted as factual, intuited even into an individual's shared "common" knowledge. I do not see the need to back-up, with sources, that 2 plus 2 equals 4. If everyone on this forum is to be forced with the notion of sourcing on every statement they make, everyone would be banned for the lack of sources.

 

I honestly do not understand your drive to have me source mathematical fact (regarding higher dimensions existing). And as I said, if something is so important to you, google is your friend, a good friend, maybe even your best friend, a friend that takes you out to dinner and won't let you pay for the meal, because it was his treat. Google is all kins of positive in this world, and forcing someone to abuse google for another's amusement is a blatant misuse of the resource. I will not source mathematics for you based on that premise, you must do it yourself.

 

Asian has nothing to do with it. While he is good at popularizing physics, he hasn't the nads to call out ridiculous claims that fly in the face of science. He's a woosy.

YOU'RE A WOOSY. lol seriously though, the point about him being Asian was that you were just making claims about his person, not about the science.

 

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable.

>criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable

>criticized for... being untestable

>string theory

>untestable

>theory

 

WUT

 

If these hidden dimensions are smaller than anything we can devise a test for, but would have had a major impact on the universe back at the moment of the Big Bang when the universe itself was so small as to be sensitive to such small things like dimensions curled up into Yau-Calabi shapes, and we superimpose our 'imagined' dimensions on to the initial Big Bang and then fast-forward our model a goodly 14-15 billion years to the present day, and compare our modeled universe with the one we can see and it turns out they are identical, would that float your boat?

It floated mine. This ^ is a very good point, Turtle. You accepted part of it, but not the part about prediction. Theories don't have to have future-predictive powers, only past-predictive powers. String theory and M-theory and the likes have incredibly good past-predictive powers. This is what makes them such strong theories. Reconsider throwing out these theories so quickly.

 

Let us regress to the beginning of this post:

Thank you.

 

"A non-deistic "perfect" god creates all sorts of logical fallacies but most importantly the fallacy of holding belief in something that you cannot "prove or disprove" or will ever be able to "prove or disprove". So we're not talking about non-deistic gods, we're only talking about the ones we can test for....."

...

Is Aristotelean Logic and The Scientific Method ALWAYS the best way to Examine Everything in our Lives?

No, it's not, but since we're looking for ways to test deistic gods (and there are plenty), the scientific method and formal logic are the only ways we need (or can even use).

 

Are there questions that Science cannot do a good job of Exploring?

Maybe there are Special Cases where Science and Logic are Exactly the Wrong Tools to use on an Issue.

I know where you're trying to go with this and you're wrong. Testing for a deistic being is not a case where these tools fall def.

 

Is this True? Or even Creditable?

Maybe. Maybe Not.

However,when you weigh the question, you have already stepped outside of Science and Into Metaphysics.

Science can't be used to Validate The Scientific Method anymore than you can lift yourself by your own Bootstraps.

Okay this is where I'm 100% off-board now. If you're publicly admitting that what you're saying isn't credible, or that you at least have no idea or reason to support its credibility, then why are you using it for argumentation against me? Secondly, the question does not step outside science, I am explicitly stating that a try at empirical testing is necessary for proving a deistic god. Lastly, the field of study and academia, Science, can and is used to validate the scientific method.

 

What if God isn't "Rational"—at least not in any way that we understand?

What if there are a number of Logically Incompatible Axioms running our Universe on the Fundamental Level?

...

But you can hardly analyze a Chess Match using the Rules of Checkers or Poker.

And we're back to making sense. What you say is a fair point here. However, I have heard this argument many times that "god is outside our understanding." The problem with making that claim and trying to believe it, is that you then force yourself into a box where you aren't allowed to try and understand god. By semantic definition of the meaning of the words in the argument, you cannot understand that which is not understandable. What you're doing is putting god outside of a testable or identifiable means, which is what a non-deistic god is. By redefining god you employ the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. So while yes, it may be true that a non-deistic god is beyond logic (making it illogical btw), it doesn't matter, because we're talking about a god who isn't beyond logic.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Snax

[Turtle]

You're asking me to provide sources for things generally known and accepted as factual, intuited even into an individual's shared "common" knowledge. I do not see the need to back-up, with sources, that 2 plus 2 equals 4. If everyone on this forum is to be forced with the notion of sourcing on every statement they make, everyone would be banned for the lack of sources.

 

I am not asking you; I'm telling you. Whether or not you see the need is irrelevant.

 

I honestly do not understand your drive to have me source mathematical fact (regarding higher dimensions existing). And as I said, if something is so important to you, google is your friend, a good friend, maybe even your best friend, a friend that takes you out to dinner and won't let you pay for the meal, because it was his treat. Google is all kins of positive in this world, and forcing someone to abuse google for another's amusement is a blatant misuse of the resource. I will not source mathematics for you based on that premise, you must do it yourself.

 

Again, it does not matter if you understand our rules or not. All that is necessary is that you learn & follow them.

 

YOU'RE A WOOSY. lol seriously though, the point about him being Asian was that you were just making claims about his person, not about the science.

 

:lol: Well, your point was dull. While Kaku at one time was doing science, he is now doing little more than performing as a clown in a circus.

 

>criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable

>criticized for... being untestable

>string theory

>untestable

>theory

 

WUT

If these hidden dimensions are smaller than anything we can devise a test for, but would have had a major impact on the universe back at the moment of the Big Bang when the universe itself was so small as to be sensitive to such small things like dimensions curled up into Yau-Calabi shapes, and we superimpose our 'imagined' dimensions on to the initial Big Bang and then fast-forward our model a goodly 14-15 billion years to the present day, and compare our modeled universe with the one we can see and it turns out they are identical, would that float your boat?

It floated mine. This ^ is a very good point, Turtle. You accepted part of it, but not the part about prediction. Theories don't have to have future-predictive powers, only past-predictive powers. String theory and M-theory and the likes have incredibly good past-predictive powers. This is what makes them such strong theories. Reconsider throwing out these theories so quickly.

 

Past-prediction is an oxymoron. The model can be tested against past data, but then running it beyond current time becomes a prediction. If, if, if. If wishes were horses, beggars might ride.

 

Testing for a deistic being is not a case where these tools fall def.

 

Again, a deity is by definition supernatural and there is no logical test of supernatural.

deity

1. A god or goddess.

 

god

1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

 

supernatural

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

 

nature

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature:

 

super-

1. Above; over; upon: superimpose.

2. Superior in size, quality, number, or degree: superfine.

3.

a. Exceeding a norm

 

So I don't have a problem with inquiry or enthusiasm for science, but your posts are all over the board and amount to just so much word-salad. Slow down, make one point at a time, and PROVIDE SUPPORTING REFERENCES. Anything less and it's not going to be taken seriously if read at all. Frankly I'm only reading and responding because there is little else going on here and I can use the exercise. :)

Edited February 22, 2014 by Turtle

[cal]

I am not asking you; I'm telling you.

Ukrainian Government: "We're joining Russia, I'm not asking the Ukrainian people, I'm telling them."

 

Again, it does not matter if you understand our rules or not. All that is necessary is that you learn & follow them.

You're imposing the rule poorly, I'm allowed to resist misuse of it.

 

:lol: Well, your point was dull. While Kaku at one time was doing science, he is now doing little more than performing as a clown in a circus.

This is also what Niel DeGrasse Tyson does, and both are incredibly important to science literacy of the layman in this country. They read journals and provide credible information. I don't see a reason to dislike or disagree with either of their efforts or the results those efforts produce.

 

Again, a deity is by definition supernatural and there is no logical test of supernatural.

deity

God

Note the difference between "a god" vs. "God". There is a difference in capitalization for a reason. A deistic being is limited and is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. A deistic god exists physically and can be tested for. Again, by trying to claim all gods are like God, you invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Turtle]

Ukrainian Government: "We're joining Russia, I'm not asking the Ukrainian people, I'm telling them."

 

 

You're imposing the rule poorly, I'm allowed to resist misuse of it.

 

 

This is also what Niel DeGrasse Tyson does, and both are incredibly important to science literacy of the layman in this country. They read journals and provide credible information. I don't see a reason to dislike or disagree with either of their efforts or the results those efforts produce.

 

 

Note the difference between "a god" vs. "God". There is a difference in capitalization for a reason. A deistic being is limited and is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. A deistic god exists physically and can be tested for. Again, by trying to claim all gods are like God, you invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

No. No. No. And No. Either you conduct yourself in accordance with good form or find your assertions discounted out of hand.

[Moontanman]

No. No. No. And No. Either you conduct yourself in accordance with good form or find your assertions discounted out of hand.

 

 

I know this will float your boat turtle, it depends on who defines a deity and what supernatural is before either can be said to be either...

 

10,000 years ago an airliner would have been supernatural and the being controlling it a deity by the definition of both at the time but in reality have been neither.

 

To have a coherent conversation one must agree on definitions. I think it can be asserted that a deity is by "our" definition "supernatural" and that the "supernatural" cannot be tested by "our" definition...

 

!0,000 years from now these points would still stand but might have different definitions...

[Turtle]

I know this will float your boat turtle, it depends on who defines a deity and what supernatural is before either can be said to be either...

 

10,000 years ago an airliner would have been supernatural and the being controlling it a deity by the definition of both at the time but in reality have been neither.

 

To have a coherent conversation one must agree on definitions. I think it can be asserted that a deity is by "our" definition "supernatural" and that the "supernatural" cannot be tested by "our" definition...

 

!0,000 years from now these points would still stand but might have different definitions...

 

I gave the current definitions from an authoritative source. Try and change the goal posts all you like -or avoid following the rules and intent of this site like Snaxy- , but while one has a right to one's own opinion, one does not have a right to one's own facts and per se definitions.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Turtle

[Moontanman]

I gave the current definitions from an authoritative source. Try and change the goal posts all you like -or avoid following the rules and intent of this site like Snaxy- , but while one has a right to one's own opinion, one does not have a right to one's own facts and per se definitions.

 

Damn turtle, I thought I was agreeing with you...

[Turtle]

Damn turtle, I thought I was agreeing with you...

 

Well you have a funny way of doing it. :P While I got you on the line, I'd like you to also agree with me on Snaxy's refusal to provide links to his claims. Please be clear in no uncertain terms. :lol:

[Moontanman]

Well you have a funny way of doing it. :P While I got you on the line, I'd like you to also agree with me on Snaxy's refusal to provide links to his claims. Please be clear in no uncertain terms. :lol:

 

I don't have to base my thoughts on snax, The supernatural is by definition unknowable. A deity you could test would not be supernatural. The instant you can say what it is it is no longer supernatural... At one time Angels were assumed to push the planets in their orbits, just a couple hundred years ago the reason for lightning was unknown it's cause as assumed to be supernatural. We now know not only what causes it but how to both control and create it. Did the laws of nature change? In modern times we are less likely to assume the supernatural and the supernatural has been shoved in the same holes as gods, demons, fairies and such but the supernatural by definition is undetectable by any empirical means, if you can show it them it's not by definition supernatural.

 

Nothing unreal exists...

[Turtle]

While I got you on the line, I'd like you to also agree with me on Snaxy's refusal to provide links to his claims. Please be clear in no uncertain terms. :)

I don't have to base my thoughts on snax, The supernatural is by definition unknowable. A deity you could test would not be supernatural. The instant you can say what it is it is no longer supernatural... At one time Angels were assumed to push the planets in their orbits, just a couple hundred years ago the reason for lightning was unknown it's cause as assumed to be supernatural. We now know not only what causes it but how to both control and create it. Did the laws of nature change? In modern times we are less likely to assume the supernatural and the supernatural has been shoved in the same holes as gods, demons, fairies and such but the supernatural by definition is undetectable by any empirical means, if you can show it them it's not by definition supernatural.

 

Nothing unreal exists...

 

I agree about what supernatural is. Moreover, by definition a deity IS supernatural so going on about testing it is ridiculous. I pointed that out a couple times if I recall. On these points you are rehashing stuff and in my view making things less clear.

 

But that's not what I mean in regards to my reference to Snax. What I mean is I would like you to comment on his refusal to provide links in support of his arguments on string theory and someone having a test to determine if the Universe is a simulation. He says it's not his responsibility to give links/references and I say -this being Hypography- it is his responsibility.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Turtle

[Moontanman]

I agree about what supernatural is. Moreover, by definition a deity IS supernatural so going on about testing it is ridiculous. I pointed that out a couple times if I recall. On these points you are rehashing stuff and in my view making things less clear.

 

But that's not what I mean in regards to my reference to Snax. What I mean is I would like you to comment on his refusal to provide links in support of his arguments on string theory and someone having a test to determine if the Universe is a simulation. He says it's not his responsibility to give links/references and I say -this being Hypography- it is his responsibility.

 

 

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing hooey... if you can't show it snax you don't know it. Show us the evidence...

[Turtle]

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing hooey... if you can't show it snax you don't know it. Show us the evidence...

 

Well, we are/were discussing hooey, but if we overdo it then all we have is chop hooey. :doh: Sorry; I can't resist some jocularity. :D

 

Meantime, thanks for hitting the nail. :hammer: I would still argue it goes beyond whether or not evidence can be given, to having the decency to take some personal responsibility and give it. Trite comments like 'Google is your friend' are altogether rude and otherwise lacking in common courtesy and decency.

[Moontanman]

Well, we are/were discussing hooey, but if we overdo it then all we have is chop hooey. :doh: Sorry; I can't resist some jocularity. :D

 

Meantime, thanks for hitting the nail. :hammer: I would still argue it goes beyond whether or not evidence can be given, to having the decency to take some personal responsibility and give it. Trite comments like 'Google is your friend' are altogether rude and otherwise lacking in common courtesy and decency.

 

I agree, do we not have moderators anymore? It's insulting to tell us that google is our friend, it's up to him to provide evidence not for us to search for it. I can remember a day when such a remark would have brought down fire from heaven. The main reason i do not hang out here much any more. BTW I am a moderator now! woo hoo An aquarium site, but enough science in aquarium husbandry to make it satisfying...

[Turtle]

I agree, do we not have moderators anymore? It's insulting to tell us that google is our friend, it's up to him to provide evidence not for us to search for it. I can remember a day when such a remark would have brought down fire from heaven. The main reason i do not hang out here much any more. BTW I am a moderator now! woo hoo An aquarium site, but enough science in aquarium husbandry to make it satisfying...

 

Congrats!!

 

Well, we have almost no one anymore, let alone moderators. As it is I long ago left off relying on moderators and went to addressing the issues directly myself. Snax gives some appearance of a thinking person but his ant-authoritarian bent belies his young age. Moreover it comes off as whining and petulant and any decent or worthwhile matter in his prose that may be worth discussion is cast by the wayside. Clearly he didn't come up with the ideas he's presenting here out of thin air and giving links to his sources could only clarify and bolster his ideas as something to be taken seriously. Not only that, but there are probably numerous sources on any given subject and if none -or no one in particular- is put forward then any counterarguments may or may not apply to the specifics he has in mind.

 

So Snaxy, as the lady in Fried Green Tomatos said to the young girl whose car she just smashed, I'm older and I have insurance. Suck up your false pride and bravado and give your sources so we can get on to actually discussing some ideas and I can show the specific errors in yours. Anything less just ain't gonna fly.