The scientific method allows for scepticism whereas religion does not, to that effect they’re incompatible. Science can also be called into question whereas religion must have its claims accepted at face value.

Religion has not yet provided any vaccines to say viruses via their holy books nor has it really invented anything of notable use which science has such as electricity, the combustion engine, the aeroplane so in effect religion can hold humanity back via its dogmas which is what happened during the dark ages.

For me as a god believer it allows me to be more contemplative rather than preachy which is how you appear here. Even to me God is mysterious and raises more questions than he answers.

There’s more to metaphysics than just imagination it also includes reasoning not based upon experience but using deduction thereof such as found in math. It also includes tautologies which again are aspects of reason.

Also metaphysics does not claim to be a source of knowledge that’s what epistemology is for…

You might like this quote by Kant as to what metaphysics is from his Critique of Pure reason preface.

Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.
It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic. — Kant

No way to reliably guess, it’s a coin toss. I’m gonna go with AI

I think it’s the nature of public service workers to be somewhat complacent or lazy when it comes to work ethic, not bound for any need for profit this phenomena is widespread in the west too. One can look at Greece and their corrupt/incompetent/lazy public servants before Greece went bankrupt.

Sloth essentially one of the 7 deadly sins seems widespread in the public sector as the public sector does not have the same drive towards profit as most commercial organisations where cost efficiencies are paramount.

Art itself sometimes is the method to produce it rather than the end result itself. I looked at the first link you posted where it shows the recent creations and I’m impressed by some of them. Perhaps this is another tool to the artist as much as a paintbrush has been in the past.

This is not as bad as the NFT bubble crap though so kinda refreshing.

Not necessarily moot or any question, because knowledge is often open to doubt or not available to the subject and though knowledge might be available on a certain area, the subject probing for answers might not be privy to such answers. Let’s say person A wants to know the football score, just because the football score might be available somewhere does not mean infinite knowledge just knowledge on a certain subject after a certain time. (Or after the football match has happened :grin: )

You raise an interesting point regarding infinite knowledge though and one which my op slightly wishes to query namely speed of knowledge transmission which is always limited by speed of light, so some answers might be out there but might take ages to KNOW them. But I think you meant knowledge instantly available regardless of the limits placed by the speed of light.

What other beings could there be apart from organic beings ? We as organic beings can closely probe into the micro/macro structure of most objects and have tools that can see into all sorts of spectrums be it visual or sound etc…why would one vision of reality be preferred to another ? Am I correct in thinking that there’s not a clear line dividing subjective to objective reality of objects if we have tools that allow us to do so ?

Would you go as far as saying reality is independent of the observer ? Relying not on sense data but as things are. The reason I mention this is because different creatures have different perceptions when it comes to vision, hearing, smell…

Agreed, and consisting of facts. For example currently I’m looking at my curtains, this although a personal experience does not detract from the reality of there being curtains in my room. The issue with personal experience such as the one I’m having is that a sceptic would not believe me yet for me there’s no leap of faith taking place for me to realise that what I’m looking at are curtains, that leap of faith belongs to the sceptic regarding my personal experience.

This article elaborates it better, read at your convenience the implications of detecting gravitons and how they relate to the Big Bang. You might learn something.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13834

And this for context of how science tries to get rid of God in favour of a theory of everything:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-are-gravitons-and-do-they-really-exist

Real is anything that is contained by reality. In that case you might ask what is reality? which can be subjective or objective, objective in terms of agreed upon consensus or subjective that which is in your private world such as a certain emotion.

Science does not "try to supplant God" because science itself is not an agent. — 180 Proof

I would argue that science is in fact an agent or a method for discovering about the natural world and invention but by calling it an agent rather than a method we would be arguing about the definition of science which seems the direction you want to take this discussion towards. “Science did it” was me being literal but you get the gist. You could replace science for gravity in this instance which is a scientific term instead. So now we’ve changed propositions from the magical God to the magical Gravity as gravitons elude science as much as god does to an atheist.

To me the question is simpler than that and even Aristotle considered in his proposal of a first cause which is what this discussion of God ultimately boils down to.

And if so does it point to a creator?
— simplyG
No. — 180 Proof

If we take pure math to be a product of pure consciousness (whatever that is). Then these eternal concepts/abstractions/calculations/numbers which precede the physical universe are only evokable so via consciousness otherwise what would exist then? Just dumb matter.

Mathematics is the language in which God has written the Universe
— Galileo

Just leaving that quote by Galileo there as seems apt to my first question….

What do you mean "apart from him not existing"?
If he doesn't exist, how can there be any complaint about him, i.e. about something that doesn't exist? :smile:
Except if the complaint is about his non-existence. That is, that we are alone, without anyone to protect and guide — Alkis Piskas

It appears you have taken the quote out of context. If you read my opening post again you will find that the point I’m making is that if god exists who is perfect why is there suffering in the world. This is a common complaint or objection to the existence or non existence of a perfect, benevolent God.

Thanks for defining what science is. And it’s not meaningless at all as science tries to supplant god in explanatory power of what created the universe which is what the article I’ve linked is proposing so I don’t know how I’ve misread it.

Admittedly I haven’t read his book a brief history of time, tried to a long time in my teens but was beyond me at the time so I don’t know exactly his views then regarding creation theory of universe but as far as the article I’ve linked is concerned he mostly says science did it rather than God by invoking laws of gravity in its creation rather than god. Perhaps I’m misreading him and your comprehension is better…

Erm, how about Stephen Hawking?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

Though not the same thing they seem inter related somewhat. Free will, if we do have it and is in fact real rather than illusory means my choices are undetermined by (my) past actions, freedom on the other hand according to the dictionary is the power to act, think, or speak as one wants.

Now you wouldn’t be able to do or not do those things if you didn’t have free will right ? I could have chosen not to make this post but I did …does that not constitute both freedom and free will and merge the concepts somewhat ?

I agree with you on your summation of Wittgenstein, great mind though he was, he appeared more concerned with language use then actual philosophy perhaps giving birth to philosophy of language in the meantime slightly inflated his reputation as a philosopher at the time and although significant in his own way he holds nothing to say Locke, Hobbes, Hume or Kant imo.

Do you think free will and freedom are the same thing and where do you think would be a difference between the two?

My apologies for simplifying the question slightly

Just because man has made leaps and bounds of progress in scientific fields does not mean he was not created by God or that god is redundant as an explanation, science could well be gods way of creation and therein lies the arrogance of the atheist equalling that of the theist. Whilst the latter claims god did it now the atheist says science did it (the big bang created the universe etc).

The only difference is, and where God has no place in the scientific community is when asking “well what came before the Big Bang?” to which the scientist can simply say we don’t know or propose various theories whereas the theist could just simply say God created it, which is as equally valid a theory as any proposed by science as the theory itself is unprovable.

But it does baffle the mind that when looking at various scientific phenomena such as lighting one can not but be in awe of its power though we know the explanation behind it.

The op is also a bit disingenuous and dismissive of some great Christian scientists such as Newton to name one of the heavyweights to prove such attention seeking point by a pretty much minor and unknown scientist such as Greta Christina,

The problem of consciousness is so hard because not only is it an abstraction layer on top of a physical brain but also because we are creatures that experience emotion and behave unexpectedly rather than mechanically.

The reason why it can’t be explained is because consciousness could be the divine spark manifesting its creator in human form or it could even be a soul but that’s unscientific.

The mind is not the brain.

The traditional rockstar god who can do it all. All seeing, all knowing, all powerful.

God cannot be known so cannot be established, well for me anyway I don’t need to know all his attributes if I have faith in his existence.

which god is true and how do we establish this? It's the salient question for any theist. — Tom Storm

If this could be known there’d be no need for faith and even atheists would be believers.

Just to add, freedom is also about having choices. These can vary from the mundane such as what type of shoes you buy to who you marry. Contrast this with some cultures where brides are given to marriage without their choice.

It’s also the fundamental right not to be coerced into doing something against one’s will unless of course that individual has committed some sort of crime which allows the state to deny his freedom for a period of time.

Potentially, yes one could look at suffering that way. Once certain basic needs are met then we as human beings can live in happiness rather than misery.

The issue with having a nervous system is the experience of physical pain but the upside is the experience of pleasure too.

I also think a life without suffering would have no meaning as even pleasurable or happy experiences would become mundane.

Suffering is a necessary precondition to appreciating the good life so I don’t see the problem or issue if there is some of it in the world as they’re challenges to be overcome and make one stronger, better and fitter in the long run as opposed to only having lived an easy life.

If we assume God created everything then we must assume this includes suffering. If He hadn't created anything then there wouldn't be any.suffering — FrancisRay

Well it’s an interesting question to me because god is meant to be all good and perfect which implies no need for suffering or pain yet here we are. I can catch a bad cold that pains me so where did these imperfections that cause pain come from if god is perfect? I would answer to appreciate our good health in good times.

But what if in extremes one was in chronic pain ? How would we answer this question of a god that loves his children ? This one I cannot fully answer but it would be through the innovation of brilliant scientists who would find a cure to such ailments, in short a miracle.

Or we could have the wrong ethics - his are far beyond the ethics we understand. — Manuel

Perhaps his ethics could be neatly be summed up by no pain no gain. I think he knows better than us, imagine a society of above average looking millionaires, the concept of beauty would no longer have any meaning here and who would do the grunt work of say picking up the rubbish? So everything has to be balanced by different classes of citizens some who are not so well off to some who are…perhaps that’s his logic. Strikes me of the master/slave …but can you think of a better way society can be organised? Communism ?

The mistaken idea that because wickedness exists in the world means that god does not exist seems slightly flawed despite the numerous times atheists keep banging their heads against it. It would be a contravention of the act of creation itself to restrict human free will to do only as they are told i.e good.

The issue is that once free will is granted to human beings some of them abuse it by committing horrific or evil acts.

But it’s also this very capacity that allows one to do good too such as helping mankind make life easier for each other and improving their overall condition by granting them the volition to do so otherwise we would simply be well to do puppets on a string only doing good because we have no choice.

So it’s precisely this choice good or bad that makes the world interesting …think of the many scientific discoveries that can be used for good and for bad.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of modern pop culture promotes hedonistic lifestyles in terms of the portrayal of the 7 deadly sins such as gluttony, lust, greed, envy, pride etc quite openly thanks to mainstream media and the short attention spans of most viewers. You’ve also got idolatry there too in the form celebrity worship.

These values are youth corrupting by how they’re not only tolerated but actively promoted by various powerful media agents to generate shallow interest and objectification and glorification of these sins whilst virtues are not worth a nickel.

The question is why? One of them is money which is the root of all evil as by participating in these 7 deadly sins not only does society become degenerate but ends up pursuing false ideals.

But what should be promoted instead? Well these come to mind: prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice in addition to kindness and charity.

Yet capitalism has no care for such virtues.

The effects of widespread drug use could mean it would mean loss of productivity in a capitalistic society where almost everyone would be chasing a high and not to mention overdosing and a strain on the health systems if they’re nationalised like in the UK.

Generally speaking though the legality of drug use is of concern to governments for another reason specially for controlled substances which cause great damage to the human body despite deregulation the government has a duty to protect these individuals from such self harm.

It’s a good question as to why the government would not allow say the use of hard drugs in a controlled manner rather than lining the pockets of shady drug dealers who sometimes create a dependency on their users and ruining their physical and mental health in the process.

The reasons why governments don’t want everyone to turn into a junkie are obvious as these things are pretty addictive and peer influence can create an epidemic of drug use was it to be fully legalised for all of society. The widespread effects would be catastrophic imo yet at the same time they also conflict with individual freedom as to how one should live their life, so there has to be a balance somewhere which is hard to do for strongly addictive drugs.

@Vera Mont

It’s interesting that we have laws that protect and also restrict certain freedoms, for example most people wish to not pay tax yet these are traded in for policing and maintenance of infrastructure of society as well as welfare in terms of healthcare or other types of monetary benefits that citizens would get that would not restrict the choice on their lifestyle were they to lose their jobs say.

But that some social contracts are forced does not mean an erosion in liberty or freedom even though certain governments may be incompetent in how they operate in redistribution of tax income or defending your freedoms from say another aggressive state which might have different aims such as China which operates high levels of censorship when it comes to free speech.

Do you not have your own idea of the difference? — Vera Mont

The right to bear arms for example is not the same for every country you live in.

Science does not have all the answers as it’s limited by the tools it’s able to detect or dissect natural phenomena.

But just because this is so does not necessarily mean that it’s cause is supernatural or god but it could well be a possibility. Life in the universe and the emergence of consciousness is shrouded in mystery which science itself does not fully have all the answers but it’s made good progress in certain areas such as quantum mechanics which still baffles even the best physicists which continue to propose different models or frameworks of understanding and explaining these phenomena.

Yet there is hope for god because even science is limited and though it may progress it is limited to the point of big bang prior to which we are not able to probe and not privy to what occurred before so @ucarr you raise a very valid point by bringing god into the equation, a being which has always been could be existence itself in a way, eternal without beginning or end would mean science does not necessarily have to give up its methods of establishing theories but that it would come to a standstill in this enterprise of explaining everything.

The ability to do what one wishes within reason such as not limiting the freedom of other living beings and acting in accordance with one’s free will.

Is it possible for anyone to have total freedom? — Vera Mont

Yes, but excluding illegal acts in a liberal society.

What kinds of freedom can a person have? — Vera Mont

The freedom to pursue one’s interests or happiness as long as they’re legal in the state the individual operates and lives in.

What kinds of freedom can subgroups have within a greater society? — Vera Mont

Freedoms that allow for greater or lesser freedoms by changing the laws of that society.

Are there natural, insurmountable limits to individual freedom? — Vera Mont

Yes but only in terms of immoral or illegal acts such as murder, theft and other types of criminal acts that impact someone else and are prohibited by law.

Are socially imposed limits necessary? — Vera Mont

Sometimes, for the reason to your last question.

Can and should all people have the same amount of personal freedom? — Vera Mont

Absolutely, given that we’re all born of equal capacity.

How do we distinguish a freedom from a right? — Vera Mont

Through legal frameworks.

Where does this come from? I never said "what if everyone is like that?", I said, "what if someone is like that?". Or even: what if a group of people becomes like that?". Why should every single citizen be interested in politics? If someone only cares about maths, why force them to vote — Skalidris

Still the same applies because if ones values are not represented by the politicians in charge then electing them out by not voting for them is one step in doing so unless the person is ok with their values being replaced by the values of the politician which might contradict one’s own.

Sure a lot of things affect our lives that are beyond our control but choosing our politicians is where we do have control in a democracy.

Unless political values affect personal values of individuals - hence why democracy is the best model of government instead of tyranny.

Or do you have thoughts about the consequences this could have? — Skalidris

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. — Plato

That’s the consequence, as most of us live in democracies our interests are represented by the politicians we choose to elect and it’s important the wrong ones don’t get elected as they could end up affecting your life.

What is real ? Tangible things perceived by the senses such as apples, oranges, buildings, in short the world and everything in it.

Reality warrants no belief or leap of faith such as a God which does require faith.

And I might hallucinate, but the hallucination is my reality — A Realist

I have no experience of what hallucinations are like but though vision might be altered the other senses might be unaffected such as touch and smell which would discredit that sort of reality.

Confidently committing to atheism rather than say agnosticism or unsure if God exists strikes me as equal to theism although the other side of the coin and without evidence, instead granting explanation power to science itself which it does not fully have.

The concept of good wouldn’t exist without the concept of bad, as simple as that, hence god is not the issue.

Even if utopia was possible where nothing bad happened and only good then how would badness be known if all that was known and happened was good ?

In a world where no bad or evil acts happened then that world would not have the world evil in their dictionary hence a metaphysical argument has to be provided regarding the issue of evil which @Count Timothy von Icarus has given @schopenhauer1

@180 ProofApologetic gibberish you call it well forgive me, there’s plenty of suffering to go round with or without god and if we can reduce it than that would be nice I’m not saying some religious principles have not been the cause of many wars but that has been a misinterpretation of gods plan for mankind.

I guess I fall into the apologetic category by your and my admissions, that’s not too bad I’m in good company.

Oh and don’t forget that life can be beautiful too, depends how you see it…always a glass half full kinda guy. The happy moments should be equally appreciated with the sad ones :)

Not saying evil is good, I am however saying evil is in one sense inevitable because we’re not perfect yet. Were we able to eradicate disease and wars or other types of misfortune ourselves then we’d be close to it …perhaps God likes to delegate the nitty gritty to us…

@180 Proof does this angle help ?