If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

[mmnin]

WessleWoggle said:

mmnin said:

WessleWoggle said:

tombi123 said:

WessleWoggle said:

tombi123 said:

 

 

 

 

But many people think god is unknowable, by that given definition it's illogical to believe he doesn't exist, but that has more to do with philosophy and not science, and you did say scientific.

Yes, it's logical to think pink unicorns don't exist. You've never seen one, and unicorns are mythical creations of man. If they're a invisible pink unicorn though, it is illogical to believe they don't exist. You can't see them not existing.

Flying pigs... Ever seen a cop in a helicopter? How about a pig shot out of a cannon?

 

 

Lots of good stuff.  Here, as well, there is again an implication that logic is a relative term to the circumstance with which we confine it and in turn is limited to our current knowledge and since we are subject to psychology, we can also say our current "accepted" knowledge.  If logic wasn't a relative term here, then you would have to coin that it is "scientific" that pink unicorns don't exist, but then you are saying that science isn't logical, in which case it would potentially be an inferior process as it would not be considering all possibilities, which could house a correct possibility not considered.  Just thought I would bring that tidbit out for my past posts, but all your points are well made.

 

 But possibilites don't need to be considered in the science world if they're bullshit. In philosophy though, there is reason to consider them, to think about them for the hell of it. Scientists don't need to study to see if there's a giant teapot orbiting mars, but philosophers can ponder the idea. To science it's bullshit unproven crap. In philosophy it can be something to ponder.

Sciences way of logic may be inferior to something else, but you know what, we'd have to use the scientific process to see if the new method was better. :P

Science logic:

1. A man claims X is true

2. No proof for X is found

3. Therefore X is unproven at the moment

Philosophy logic

1. A man claims X is true

2. A man thinks up some philosophical bullshit

3. Therefore X is not proven or disproven.

 

All science is based upon the world in the scenario as we know it to be and through the limited senses that we have to percieve with.  We created all the core structures that we use to determine whether something is scientifically sound or not.  And while they may coexist with our observations in enough cases that we do not completely discredit them, the possibility that there are more accurate methods which reference the world in its entirety as opposed to simply how we percieve it is always present.  They get us by, but they may not be perfect.  To state that they are perfect would be to imply that you know as truth that there is no other possibilities, which cannot be as we may not have observed what is necessary to know that.  So while we break new ground and discover new useful information and processes, we are doing so at the risk of being wrong.

Science in many ways is about function, not truth.  Like walking.  It may not be the best form of travel if we were to know every invention that could ever be created and every principle that could ever be discovered, but it works, we know that, and so we use it.