Theology Question

[Saint Guinefort]

I am able to understand it...and employ it.

So why don't you engage on the "null hypothesis" approach. That is how science is done.

You pretend to understand it...and seem unwilling to even attempt to employ it.

I have CLEARLY applied it. I start with the null hypothesis "There is no God" (just like if I were testing for a non-zero slope to a line). Then I look at the evidence and I simply fail to reject the null hypothesis.

The fact that you don't seem to understand ANY of that is not an indicator that I have failed to employ it.

You use of logic is abysmal...in fact, it should be called, misuse of logic.

Then you have a debate with infererential statistics and science. My apologies but that is just the plain fact.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Doc Dutch is the forum ASSHOLE

Thanks, girl! I’m #1! I’m #1! W00t!

 

[BidenPresident]

Is the God of Aristotle a personal God? Aristotle may not have spoken of the Prime Mover as being personal, and certainly the ascription of anthropomorphic personality would be very far indeed from his thoughts, but since the Prime Mover is Intelligence or Thought, it follows that he is personal in the philosophic sense.

There is no indication that Aristotle ever thought of the Prime Mover as an object of worship, still less as a Being to whom prayers may be profitably addressed. It requires the further deductions of St. Thomas Aquinas to give us the God of providence and of love.

https://heptapolis.com/en/aristotles-concept-of-god/

 

[Ross Dolan]

So why don't you engage on the "null hypothesis" approach. That is how science is done.

I do not use the "null hypothesis approach"...since there is absolutely no way that either side of the question can be tested by science.

You should realize that.

Take that "praying/not receiving an answer" stuff you attempted to a logician, and he/she will laugh at you.

I have CLEARLY applied it. I start with the null hypothesis "There is no God" (just like if I were testing for a non-zero slope to a line). Then I look at the evidence and I simply fail to reject the null hypothesis.

C'mon, man.

Stop with that nonsense. You are only making yourself look silly.

There is no way to test it. And you should not be testing "There is no God"...you should be testing, "There is not at least one god."

The fact that you don't seem to understand ANY of that is not an indicator that I have failed to employ it.

Take your arguments to a local logician. You can find one at your nearest university. Prepare to be laughed at.

There is no reasonable, non-silly way you can test, "There are no gods."

NO WAY!

Just like there is no reasonable, non-silly way you can test, "There are no sentient beings on any of the planets orbiting the nearest 15 stars to Sol."

Which is what you are suggesting. It cannot be done.

You will never arrive at an answer that is better than, I DO NOT KNOW.

Then you have a debate with infererential statistics and science. My apologies but that is just the plain fact.

After decades of dealing with stuff like this, I have come to realize how very difficult it is for some people (LOTS OF PEOPLE) to use the expression, "I do not know."

You are displaying that trait.

You are too intelligent to be doing that.

If it is a feature of you being too young right now...grow up.

 

[BidenPresident]

Then you have a debate with infererential statistics and science.

Why does science have anything to say about the nature of God? Can science tell us whether Picasso was a good painter?

 

[Phantasmal]

Why does science have anything to say about the nature of God? Can science tell us whether Picasso was a good painter?

Emotionally, no, but a computer can be programmed with certain standards to judge art or replicate a style.

 

[BidenPresident]

but a computer can be programmed with certain standards to judge art or replicate a style.

That answers what question?

 

[Phantasmal]

That answers what question?

Using science to determine good art.

 

[BidenPresident]

Using science to determine good art.

What standard? That is the question I asked. Science only investigates physical processes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Emotionally, no, but a computer can be programmed with certain standards to judge art or replicate a style.

Agreed. It can certainly tell if Picasso colored inside all the lines or analyze patterns of color choices.

The Chatbot thing about writing college papers is interesting. Even telling stories although my understanding is it takes old stories and reinvents them akin to the old Hollywood maxim about how there’s only six plots in storytelling. Given the building blocks, a machine can reconfigure them in different ways.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...hers-reveal-building-blocks-storytelling.html
There are just SIX plots in every film, book and TV show ever made: Researchers reveal the 'building blocks' of storytelling

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Using science to determine good art.

….or porn.

I do find it curious that many streaming video or audio apps track patterns and suggest things I might like. It’s a handy feature.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Why does science have anything to say about the nature of God? Can science tell us whether Picasso was a good painter?

Picasso wasn't a good painter. I greatly dislike Picasso. Art is wholly subjective.

There was a study done once that found that often "great art" is little more than a general agreement around exposure to the art but not based on some technical detail. It is more related to how much we are exposed to a piece of art rather than some "greatness" metric.

Here's the analysis: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/what-makes-great-art

Indeed, however, science CAN tell us what makes great art by the science of PSYCHOLOGY.

This isn't to say that emotional experiences are without merit. They are a great example of something that fires off specific neurons in our brain and floods our systems with various chemicals like dopamine etc which yields a feeling of pleasure when viewing it.

Emotional experiences; love, hate, happiness, joy, sadness, etc. are responses to stimuli. And not universal in some greater sense. What makes some people greatly happy will not make others happy. I despise poetry. Just can't stand it. Am I still human?

I have never fully understood the need to rely on emotional experience as an indicator of something beyond the physical world. I mean, on its surface I "get it", but it doesn't really have that necessary relationship IMHO.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I do not use the "null hypothesis approach"...since there is absolutely no way that either side of the question can be tested by science.

You should realize that.

Just ask a Christian for "evidence" for God. They always have plenty they feel is sufficient for them. In fact doubt there are many Christians who say "I am a Christian and Love God with all my heart and soul and I feel absolutely no connection or any sense of reality of God."

OF COURSE you can test the God Hypothesis. If I thought there were millions of people who believed wholeheartedly in something they have no reason for belief in I would worry.

Take that "praying/not receiving an answer" stuff you attempted to a logician, and he/she will laugh at you.

Why? It was a legitimate question in the 19th century. And many similar studies were done in the 20th as well. It is literally IN THE BIBLE ITSELF.

There is no way to test it. And you should not be testing "There is no God"...you should be testing, "There is not at least one god."

I understand you are not familiar with how null hypotheses work. Take the example of the slope of a line I gave earlier.

Take your arguments to a local logician. You can find one at your nearest university. Prepare to be laughed at.

Oh give it a rest.

After decades of dealing with stuff like this, I have come to realize how very difficult it is for some people (LOTS OF PEOPLE) to use the expression, "I do not know."

You are displaying that trait.

So that's how you approach EVERYTHING in life? You see a door and it MIGHT have a vicious tiger behind it. It might. YOU DON'T KNOW because you can't see through the door.

Do you find yourself stuck in the bathroom at work often because of this possibility?

NO! You don't believe there is a tiger behind a door you can't see through. You just DON'T. So you easily go out of the bathroom. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TIGER even though you don't actually "know" if the Tiger is there.

If it is a feature of you being too young right now...grow up.

Oh jesus, what is it with you guys and trying to guess other people's ages?

Why don't you admit you don't really know what I'm talking about with regards to testing the null hypothesis?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Picasso wasn't a good painter. I greatly dislike Picasso. Art is wholly subjective.

Your negativity is interesting since happy people are positive not negative. That’s where the mystery comes in for me. LOL

Agreed that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that much of our opinions of beauty are culturally based. This one area where personalities diverge; those who only accept culturally approved standards of beauty and those who know what they like regardless of the opinions of others.

While, like myself, I think you are among the latter group, Perry, the fact you whine so much about the first group tells me you lack confidence in being in the second group.

Why are you so stressed out? Don’t you know you do that to yourself?

 

[Cypress]

Your negativity is interesting since happy people are positive not negative. That’s where the mystery comes in for me. LOL

Agreed that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that much of our opinions of beauty are culturally based. This one area where personalities diverge; those who only accept culturally approved standards of beauty and those who know what they like regardless of the opinions of others.

While, like myself, I think you are among the latter group, Perry, the fact you whine so much about the first group tells me you lack confidence in being in the second group.

Why are you so stressed out? Don’t you know you do that to yourself?

I don't think Picasso was trying to paint pretty pictures.

But there is something powerful and primal in his art that catches your eye.

If you hung 50 paintings in a gallery, 10 by Picasso, and 40 by students from the local art school, odds are that most people will be visually drawn to Picasso's art even if they don't know who he is, even if they don't think it meets conventional standards for pretty pictures.

 

[BidenPresident]

Picasso wasn't a good painter.

Oh boy.

 

[BidenPresident]

I have never fully understood the need to rely on emotional experience as an indicator of something beyond the physical world.

I never said a thing about something beyond the physical.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't think Picasso was trying to paint pretty pictures.

But there is something powerful and primal in his art that catches your eye.

Actually my point was that art is subjective. I don't happen to like Picasso. That's the entire point. The other poster asked if science could determine how Picasso was great. I don't think it can because that isn't really a meaningful designation. Picasso is great only insofar as he is well known. Not all like him.

Purely subjective experience based on personal taste is not necessarily an indicator of the supernatural.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I never said a thing about something beyond the physical.

Then you agree with me. Thanks!

 

[BidenPresident]

Actually my point was that art is subjective. I don't happen to like Picasso. That's the entire point. The other poster asked if science could determine how Picasso was great.

I do not know who said that, but it was not me.