Philosophy

[imatfaal]

If one has to test the God hypothesis then that is the literal explanation and hence it is a problem for theologians not scientists. If scientists need to falsify the God hypothesis they can do it with in their own magisteria by developing a model of everything rather than interfering with the magisteria of theologians.

literal

(

comparative

more literal

,

superlative

most literal

)

 

1. Exactly as
   stated
   ;
   read
   or
   understood
   without additional
   interpretation
   ;
   according
   to the
   letter
   or verbal expression;
   real
   ; not
   figurative
   or
   metaphorical
   .
   The
   literal
   translation is "hands full of bananas" but it means empty-handed.
2. Following
   the letter or exact words; not
   free
   ; not taking
   liberties
   .
   A
   literal
   reading of the law would prohibit it, but that is clearly not the intent.
3. Consisting of, or expressed by,
   letters
   .

from wiktionary - we are obviously using quite different meanings of literal. I am using #1 above.

 

This is not nonsense, it was Stephen Jay Gould who established the Non-overlapping magisteria and New Atheists have openly attacked and criticized the views of NOMA which I basically think is inappropriate and incorrect and an apparent lack of understanding how God works his works.

The ideal of non-overlapping magisteria is bust - they shouldn't over-lap in a perfect world, but in out dirty datum universe they do. Criticising (or the need for criticism of) NOMA does not require a knowledge of how a god works his works or the science - it needs an acknowledgement that on the ground there is conflict between two groups and the ideologies they push; the two magisteria should not overlap, but they do!

 

I hope you do realize that this is not solipsism, according to solipsism only your mind exists and both the external world as well as other people's minds do not exist but that is not the view of theistic religions, there is an external world which exists independent of the mind and revelations gives us methods to observe your own mind and in this way this gives a commitment to the belief that what we are observing is the noumenon of the world i.e the things in themselves.

 

Its not solipsism, subjective idealism, naturalism, absolute idealism and objective idealism. It is the idea of a personal God and his hypothesis.

The

noumenon

/

ˈ

n

uː

m

ɨ

n

ɒ

n

/

is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the

senses

.

^[1]

noumenon

(

plural

noumena

)

(philosophy) In the philosophy of

Immanuel Kant

(1724-1804) and those whom he

influenced

, a thing as it is

independent

of any

conceptualization

or

perception

by the

human

mind

; a

thing-in-itself

,

postulated

by practical

reason

but existing in a condition which is

in principle

unknowable

and

unexperienceable

.

From Wikipedia and Wiktionary. We are again using different meanings. You will have to provide a definition for noumenon that are observable

 

I think we need to redefine some of the terms.

 

Radical scientific realism - The view that physical or material objects don't exist in the external world and it is only a state of mind. This is the phenomenal world.

This is the complete opposite of the most usual definition of scientific realism - you are confusing polar opposites; realism and idealism

You will find this useful http://plato.stanfor...m/#ThrDimReaCom

 

Noumenal world - The world of God, the actual physical world as it IS, the five elements, himself and the mind, made up of his own stuff.

This is closer to a numinous world.

 

This take on religion is universal and all theistic religions proclaim and teach the same thing. The Sufi, Zen, Kabbalahists, Gnostics, Aryans and any authentic religion which believes in a personal God all speak of the same thing and describe God with the same attributes that, he is immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal etc. except for atheistic religions like Buddhism who don't speak of the existence of the noumenal world of God.

Strawman - I never queried any of those attributes. I queried the fact that you were saying that all religions work on a godlike existence of world with five elements etc merely interpreted in a lumpen sense as a material world of many and your similar other claims.

 

As long as they realize that those are their personal opinions then that's fine and they need to know that their conclusions are not compelling enough to reject the God hypothesis and such a hypothesis is very much alive. Some atheists do plan to have atheistic temples.

They are "personal opinions" if you warp those words to the dramatic extent that your argument has done with other terms your have used.

 

The noumenon is not unknowable, it can be known through revelations and such a useful practical knowledge should help the theologians to demonstrate new phenomena proving the God hypothesis otherwise religion as a whole is rubbish and unreal and it does work on evidence, its not entirely based on blind faith.

"The noumenon is not unknowable" - only if you define it wrongly.

[immortal]

 

literal (comparative more literal, superlative most literal)

 

Exactly as stated; read or understood without additional interpretation; according to the letter or verbal expression; real; not figurative or metaphorical. The literal translation is "hands full of bananas" but it means empty-handed.

Following the letter or exact words; not free; not taking liberties. A literal reading of the law would prohibit it, but that is clearly not the intent.

Consisting of, or expressed by, letters.

 

from wiktionary - we are obviously using quite different meanings of literal. I am using #1 above.

 

Even I am referring to the #1 definition of literal.

 

In the beginning He created the heavens and earth and He said, "Let there be light". I am taking this literally. Yes that's how God created the world but it doesn't contradict with what science says because God is speaking about his numinous world not the world of science.

 

The ideal of non-overlapping magisteria is bust - they shouldn't over-lap in a perfect world, but in out dirty datum universe they do. Criticising (or the need for criticism of) NOMA does not require a knowledge of how a god works his works or the science - it needs an acknowledgement that on the ground there is conflict between two groups and the ideologies they push; the two magisteria should not overlap, but they do!

 

That is a serious misunderstanding of creation scientists and the New Atheists.

 

There can be only two possibilities. Either science gives an objective account of reality and proves scientific realism beyond any doubt or theologians reduce science to a state of mind. Therefore they both don't overlap with each other often only when we are questioning our fundamental reality they overlap and conflict arises but that is an open question where both the people working in their own magisteria can come up with evidence and falsify the other ideology.

 

 

This is the complete opposite of the most usual definition of scientific realism - you are confusing polar opposites; realism and idealism

You will find this useful http://plato.stanfor...m/#ThrDimReaCom

 

I'm not confusing anything, that is the reason I prefixed the word "Radical" in front of scientific realism because I doesn't want to call myself an Idealist, I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist but I don't believe in scientific realism but I believe in the objective world of God made of five elements only that exists in the external physical world.

 

This is closer to a numinous world.

 

That numinous world is the world of noumenon.

 

Strawman - I never queried any of those attributes. I queried the fact that you were saying that all religions work on a godlike existence of world with five elements etc merely interpreted in a lumpen sense as a material world of many and your similar other claims.

 

The religion of Aryans do claim to have an objective numinous world of a personal God and I think even other religions with their own personal Gods should be interpreted in that way, only then religion makes perfect sense otherwise most of what religion says will definitely contradict science and turns out to be false and therefore I think that is the correct interpretation of the scriptures considering our wisdom which says God doesn't speak lies.

 

 

"The noumenon is not unknowable" - only if you define it wrongly.

 

Kant made a philosophical eror when he said the noumenon is unknowable, the noumenon can be known through revelations which doesn't require sense organs.

[imatfaal]

Sorry Immortal I am gonna call it a day here. There is no point in discussion without a common language and your use of terms and concepts is so far from that which is commonly accepted that arguing becomes a fools errand.

[immortal]

If God has revealed truths to humanity, then these truths should be testable. Over the millennia many people have reported religious or mystical experiences in which they have communicated with one god or another. By now, we should have seen some confirming evidence for this, such as a verifiable fact that could not have been in the person's head unless it was revealed to them. We have not.

 

I'm not sure as to whether this condition is satisfied or not. The use of the word 'By now'?

 

Almost all scholars in the field agree that most of the practical knowledge has been lost and we need to start all over again from scratch but I don't think they have been officially studied and rejected. The possibility of revealed truths are very important for religion to have any truth in it at all, the knowledge gained from those revealed truths should be able to passed on to others and should be very useful, I don't think they have been studied extensively and any serious attempts being made to recover the lost knowledge. We should have this knowledge if religion has any truth in it.

[PeterJ]

Religion makes many testable claims and they are regularly tested. For example, it claims that mind and matter are emergent and dependent phenomena. This claim is being tested every day of the week.

 

God is a slight irrelevance here, since He is not necessary for religion.

[immortal]

Religion makes many testable claims and they are regularly tested. For example, it claims that mind and matter are emergent and dependent phenomena. This claim is being tested every day of the week.

 

Even in Consciousness studies religion and science don't overlap, however the conclusions of such studies have strong implications for religion.

 

God is a slight irrelevance here, since He is not necessary for religion.

 

Even the Mahayana Buddhist's believe in Gods, Demons and tantric practices. Can you name a religion where God or an impersonal God is irrelevant?