jerlands wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 2:13 am
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Note my first premise which I emphasized later should be;
P1.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
What is empirical-rational reality? Isn't empirical-rational reality a bit of an oxymoron? If I were a doctor and told you I cured alzheimer's through diet and have done it many times would you accept that diet cures alzheimer's?
Science is very specifically based on the Scientific Framework and Methods.
The core of its method is based on from correlation between variables then to cause & effect and concluding with a theory based on multiple testing and consistent repetitions of the results.
Thus if you start with;
- Dieting = alzheimer's cured - many times [say 20].
(Assuming 'cure' is possible.)
The above is empirical and based on observation of evidence within an empirical reality.
But note being philosophical and rational, it would not be wise to accept such mere observation as 99.9% truth. At most we accept this as a correlation and assigned a confidence level of say 50%.
The reason is we have not exactly isolated 'dieting' as the sole variable.
Even if have isolated dieting as the sole variable, we still need to identify the exact critical variable to contribute to the cure.
It is possible the critical variable[s] could be a type of food within the diet and certain elements within that type of food.
When we have identified the critical variable[s] from the diet, we will do various control experiments.
In addition we will use other food that has those critical variable[s] to test whether they produce the same results.
For example it was discovered certain food prevented or cured beriberi. Then further research indicated it was the vitamin B1 as the critical element in the food that cure beriberi. Even artificially manufactured vitamin B1 will cure beriberi.
If you review the above processes, you will note it started with an empirical base, i.e. observation and experiences but then further
thinking and
rationality is applied
logically to investigate into the various process to improve in finding the final critical element, e.g. vitamin B1 in the case of the above example.
This is the basis of the empirical-rational reality and we must add in 'philosophical' to ensure all the processes and perspectives involved are holistic.
So where does you claim empirical-rational is oxymoron?
Note the principle applicable here is
complementarity which is also applied in Quantum Physics [Bohr].
You need to check your philosophical vision which imo is quite lacking and need to be filled with much philosophical knowledge.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The idea of Actus_purus support my P2.
Actus-Purus supports the notion of God as being perfect but does not necessarily support your views.
[/quote]Why not? You seem lost here?
My premise 2 asserts God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, so Actus-Purus support my premise 2.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
You need to provide more rational arguments against the premises I raised.
I thought you were looking for empirical evidence?
My syllogism is not based on the empirical. So I did not ask for empirical evidence in this case.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The debate on this is not about the etymology of the word 'Science.'
The relevant origin of 'Science' is 'to know.' Perhaps 'cutting' was related to cutting up things and dissection of things to know what is inside. But Science = to know is not based on cutting and dividing all the time.
Science is a methodology that requires measure, relation of one thing to another.
You are off topic in this case.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
If God is founded, then where is the evidence for God.
As I had mentioned before there are those who founded God but they suffered from various mental illness, brain damage, took drugs, did meditations, etc.
There are no real evidence of God existing.
If you insist, where is the evidence?
I've tried to relay this notion to you but you continue to either overlook it or dismiss it. God is found through self examination. God cannot be given to another man but through himself.
What I trying to tell you, whatever is claimed by the self alone by self-examination is merely opinion and cannot be objective knowledge.
A hypochondriac through self-examination will claim he has a certain serious disease. Will you or anyone accept it? The ultimate is to confirm the person self-examination is true or not, we still need an empirical-rational process.
Therefore you cannot simply claim a God based on self-examination is real and true.
To confirm your God through self-examination is real and true, that God must processed through an empirical-rational process.
However I am certain your self-examined God cannot be brought forth to be processed through an empirical-rational process, thus God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Yes, God is known to man as a notion or idea, not as something real.
Such a notion or idea arose to human consciousness from psychological factors.
Is division, multiplication, addition or subtraction real? We see and use these basic functions all the time but fail to see how they're expressed in everything.
There are two perspectives to this;
- 1. Division, multiplication, addition or subtraction are represented in theory via reason and abstraction.
2. They can be represented by their respective processes with the empirical, e.g. cutting an apple into 2 pieces is an empirical-based division.
As for the idea of God, it cannot only be possible by reason, i.e. thinking perspective but NEVER in the empirical-rational perspective.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
What is true of things existing or created and proven with justifications cannot lead to the conclusion God exists as real.
For God to be real within the empirical rational reality, God need to be justified to be true with evidence and rational arguments.
Empirical means through observation. If you fail to look you will fail to find.
This is one of the most ridiculous proposition.
If this case, anyone can use this as an excuse and don't have to be responsible for their claim.
The point here is I want to look but it is you who had failed to produce the 'thing' for me to look.
Spectrum wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
It is pure rhetoric to rely on the following argument;
- The Sun exists
God created the Sun
Therefore God exists
There is simple logic and then there is more complex logic. Hebraic thought places the past in front of man and the future behind him. The logic in this? Man is able to see the past but unable to see the future.
.
Note there are rules to logic, you cannot invent your own.
What I presented as your thinking is basically bad logic.
Note whatever the logic, ultimately you will have to produce the evidence to prove it is real within an empirical-rational reality.
In the case of the idea of God, it is impossible for God to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
The only perspective for God to be possible is only within the perspective of reason and that is useful as a thought to deal with the natural terrible psychological angst.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.