Reasoning for/against a creator

[Foreigner]

I feel that my statement is still very accurate that Christians eventually felt that science is the work of the devil. Because that is what deeming something decadent and ungodly ultimately implies. Maybe in the beginning it was more blanketed and vague because they rejected the dominant civilization as a whole but either way Christianity was still in its formative years when Rome ruled the earth. Not even the Bible was written by then so it would make sense for them just to have a general disdain for all of their activities as opposed to the following centuries where they become more solidified into the social fabric and more direct towards specific areas and disciplines and behaviors of society that are still relevant today.

I did read your whole post but your opening paragraph, I feel, essentializes what you're saying.

This paragraph is actually contradictory. You talk about the decadence of Rome affecting the culture of early Christians, yet also acknowledge that it's pre-Biblical. That means there was no Satan happening at that time. Jesus himself never even talked about Satan. Christian notions of fire and brimstone as Hell came later with Dante's Inferno and other allegories. Hell is just the world without God. And Satan is the tempting force that leads people into such Hellish existences. That doesn't mutually exclude science, though.

So you actually agreed with my point about Roman culture but then changed the point entirely to mean something else. The fact is, after Rome fell, western Europe pretty much fell back into the dark ages. You had people squatting in latrine pits next to ruins of Roman bathhouses whose plumbing was beyond the comprehension of post-Roman humans. They were taught that Rome fell because of its decadence and that was essentially correct, but supplanting Roman culture was Christian culture, which became Christiandom that ruled societies politically, especially after the Byzantines.

All the while, the Vatican had the technology and science of Rome locked up in its catacombs, denying anyone but their internal clergy access.

The Vatican still studied science, even at its height. It just didn't allow science that contradicted Biblical teachings. It's how science was able to function during the middle ages, by concealing itself in faithful pursuits. This idea that the Dark Ages was totally ignorant is wrong. The religious and faithful did scientific works. You just weren't allowed to say God wasn't the reason for science working. In fact, those clergymen were probably the only ones doing science because after the fall of western Rome, literacy plummeted until the early middle ages when basically only clergy, nobles and royalty knew how to read or write at all.

The fear of the devil and rationality had nothing to do with it. You're transposing modern American puritanical/evangelical Christian notions to European history in ways that are not really comparable. Puritanical Christianity came much later, was totally wacko, and its remnants still persist in the USA.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

I did read your whole post but your opening paragraph, I feel, essentializes what you're saying.

This paragraph is actually contradictory. You talk about the decadence of Rome affecting the culture of early Christians, yet also acknowledge that it's pre-Biblical. That means there was no Satan happening at that time. Jesus himself never even talked about Satan. Christian notions of fire and brimstone as Hell came later with Dante's Inferno and other allegories. Hell is just the world without God. And Satan is the tempting force that leads people into such Hellish existences. That doesn't mutually exclude science, though.

So you actually agreed with my point about Roman culture but then changed the point entirely to mean something else. The fact is, after Rome fell, western Europe pretty much fell back into the dark ages. You had people squatting in latrine pits next to ruins of Roman bathhouses whose plumbing was beyond the comprehension of post-Roman humans. They were taught that Rome fell because of its decadence and that was essentially correct, but supplanting Roman culture was Christian culture, which became Christiandom that ruled societies politically, especially after the Byzantines.

All the while, the Vatican had the technology and science of Rome locked up in its catacombs, denying anyone but their internal clergy access.

The Vatican still studied science, even at its height. It just didn't allow science that contradicted Biblical teachings. It's how science was able to function during the middle ages, by concealing itself in faithful pursuits. This idea that the Dark Ages was totally ignorant is wrong. The religious and faithful did scientific works. You just weren't allowed to say God wasn't the reason for science working. In fact, those clergymen were probably the only ones doing science because after the fall of western Rome, literacy plummeted until the early middle ages when basically only clergy, nobles and royalty knew how to read or write at all.

The fear of the devil and rationality had nothing to do with it. You're transposing modern American puritanical/evangelical Christian notions to European history in ways that are not really comparable. Puritanical Christianity came much later, was totally wacko, and its remnants still persist in the USA.

This time period that you are talking about is not what I was referring to in my first post so there might be some misunderstanding here. Whether the actual idea of satan and hell was formulated during that time or not it was still a precursor to them attaching that idea on to certain behaviors later on as the religion developed over time. So I don’t really believe that what I said was contradictory. It was just an early stage in the development of the religion that still led to people viewing certain things as being associated with the devil. However this time period that you are talking about is not what I was referring to in my first post so there might be some misunderstanding.

I’m mainly talking about the time period of Charles Darwin and evolutionary theory and conjecture which lead to a more agnostic/atheist outlook in the collective more so than the previous generations. That is the definitive moment in the decline of human consciousness that has carried on to this day. That is what I meant when I said early scientists but I admit I should have worded it differently. The term “science” has changed in its essence from those early Roman days and I tend not to even consider that science because of the way it has taken form in today’s society which is incredibly different and involves a lot more electromagnetic energy and unnecessary concoctions of chemical reactions. It’s not like the romans were using atomic bombs to wipe out Christians when they started popping up.

However I do feel at a certain point science went off the track of healthy curiosity and into the destructive motivation of humanity and the diminishing of our spiritual nature. There was a time when science worked with the spirit. And not the science with the clergymen of the Middle Ages but of real, genuine science that involved spiritual teachings.

And that science probably has way more benefits for our society than what has transpired in the past 2000years or so. And even more so than what has happened in the past 200 years when it really started to become detrimental. And then again in the 1940’s with world war 2.

Science has turned into destruction and has completely separated from its spiritual essence. It has just become another tool for mass destruction and confusion that exploits people’s fears and insecurities of the world and reality and makes them feel like they have to submit their belief system to the word of prominent authoritative figures of academia or else they are considered stupid or delusional. It is only a reflection of the Christian rhetoric and dogma and mentality that was the dominating force for so long. The whole science establishment is merely a subconscious rebellion against the religious establishment that previously tyrannized them. But rebellion is a form of resistance which is then interpreted as ungodly. And ultimately the people who wanted to proceed with the more scientific outlook became exactly what they were rebelling against which confirms the nature of it being more of a subconscious reflection of religious authority rather than a noble step forward towards a more enlightened future or a more enlightened society.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

This is not correct

How would you know if you’re not acknowledging the tendency of avoiding certain aspects of your psyche in order to fit in with the current paradigm of socially established information that is merely given to you through institutions who are funded by corrupt government entities.

The current establishment only focuses on war and the destruction of the planet so it is not really safe to assume that the advancement of scientific knowledge and discovery is really in your favor or best interests. Nor is it safe to assume that these so called “scientists” are fully aware of their own psychology and emotional trauma to really make an accurate and mature observation and form a solid conclusion about how the world really works.

Rather the only thing they may excel at is pointing out various mechanics of the physical dimension and creating psychiatric substances that cause people to commit suicide and shoot up schools.

 

[Skorpio]

How would you know if you’re not acknowledging the tendency of avoiding certain aspects of your psyche in order to fit in with the current paradigm of socially established information that is merely given to you through institutions who are funded by corrupt government entities.

The current establishment only focuses on war and the destruction of the planet so it is not really safe to assume that the advancement of scientific knowledge and discovery is really in your favor or best interests. Nor is it safe to assume that these so called “scientists” are fully aware of their own psychology and emotional trauma to really make an accurate and mature observation and form a solid conclusion about how the world really works.

Rather the only thing they may excel at is pointing out various mechanics of the physical dimension and creating psychiatric substances that cause people to commit suicide and shoot up schools.

First hand experience.

There are plenty of people I work with who have a whole spectrum of different spiritual views. These are really in no way incompatible with looking at empirical knowledge. A common motif I see is people saying that studying the natural world is an act of faith itself, as it allows a more nuanced appreciation of what has been created.

Idk how not being aware of psychology or emotional trauma keys into anything. Scientists (as with any group ofnpeople) are not monolithic at all. There are some with loads of emotional intelligence, and there are some that are contemptible assholes. Furthermore, the motivations for doing the work vary and are very different for each person. There is plenty of disagreement on issues, science is only the job of making models after all, there isnt herasy in science, just well supported and poorly supported arguments for different models.

I for one only see fundamentalism to be incompatible with science. The multifarious strains of religion that embrace nuance really only complement science.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

It's still called the theory of evolution because,

because ----- of the less intelligent people who do not know when a theory is so laden with evidence that only a fool would not accept it as fact and law, even if all the pieces are not in place.

So says notable respected scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Sure it is still called a theory, but only supernatural believers and poor thinkers will argue with such.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

science only disproves things. That is the foundation of science. we don't use the evidence to prove things

I disagree.

Science is all about finding proof to prove opinions and theories.

Was the doctor who developed open heart surgery trying to prove it dis not work, or was he trying to perfect his method. which he did, which proved that such surgery was possible?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

This is not correct

I agree as a supernatural god has never been proven to be real.

Even if real, one would have to be quite immoral to choose a genocidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religion.

Christians call their evil god good.

That is showing their lack of a moral sense.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Jesus himself never even talked about Satan.

Read the last supper again, or for the first time, and see the reference to Satan, right after Jesus chose Judas, his most trusted apostle and banker, to turn him in.

Regards
DL

 

[Skorpio]

I disagree.

Science is all about finding proof to prove opinions and theories.

Was the doctor who developed open heart surgery trying to prove it dis not work, or was he trying to perfect his method. which he did, which proved that such surgery was possible?

Regards
DL

I think Tripsitter is correct in this assessment, because of semantics and how scientific inquiry works. The core of a scientific experiment is disproving the null hypothesis (ie thing a and thing b are not different). The way a proper experiment is set up, failing to disprove the null hypothesis does not prove the null hypothesis, it just means there is not strong enough evidence to disprove it.

This is set up to minimize the incidence of type I errors (false positives). Because rejecting false positives and accepting false negatives is always a trade-off, we have to discount experiments that fail to disprove the null hypothesis.

I agree as a supernatural god has never been proven to be real.

Even if real, one would have to be quite immoral to choose a genocidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religion.

Christians call their evil god good.

That is showing their lack of a moral sense.

Regards
DL

Why does God have to be good or evil? An indifferent God makes a lot more sense to me than one that follows human morality. I feel like it would make sense if there were to be an indifferent God, for folks to assign moral values to it, but this in my opinion is as absurd as assigning moral values to a bird or a rock or a galaxy.

(showing my hand here, I am militantly agnostic, but definately have possibilities i prefer over others. As a general trend I tend to base my world view on more atheistic or deistic interpretations. I feel the more involved an interpretation of God is with humanity, the more paradoxes are generated. Not that this invalidates, these interpretations, no reason for any God to even be consistent).

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Why does God have to be good or evil?

Tradition and scriptures that make Yahweh the epitome of gods. Perfect in fact.

Further, and as scriptures advise, we are to judge all things, including Yahweh, and hold to the good.

Christians like that he is a (good) genocidal, homophobic and misogynous god, while Gnostic Christians have condemned his satanic ass to hell, where he belongs.

That is why we are called the only good Christians.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

This is set up to minimize the incidence of type I errors (false positives). Because rejecting false positives and accepting false negatives is always a trade-off, we have to discount experiments that fail to disprove the null hypothesis.

Scientist who want to prove the big bang do not bother trying to disprove the math that shows that we live in both a 9 dimension universe and a 12 dimension one.

That seems to disagree with your thinking.

Regards
DL

 

[extropy]

how do you prove something beyond the kantian cogito. what's the next step?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

how do you prove something beyond the kantian cogito. what's the next step?

That stands alone. No?

We use his words, I think therefore I am, the moment we have our first thought as babies and the next step would just be growth.

Growth towards showing we are the fittest of our line to date and we make our bid to be the fittest of our various tribes/religions or secular societies.

Regards
DL

 

[Skorpio]

Scientist who want to prove the big bang do not bother trying to disprove the math that shows that we live in both a 9 dimension universe and a 12 dimension one.

That seems to disagree with your thinking.

Regards
DL

I think we have our wires crossed. This is getting into semantics really hard, but these things do really have different meanings. Proofs are pretty much the realm of math (or other formal logics). Refuting the null hypothesis is the engine of science.

A scientist would never try to prove the big bang. They would test that their observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the big bang did not occur.

 

[extropy]

That stands alone. No?

We use his words, I think therefore I am, the moment we have our first thought as babies and the next step would just be growth.

Growth towards showing we are the fittest of our line to date and we make our bid to be the fittest of our various tribes/religions or secular societies.

Regards
DL

how do you mean it stands alone? because i think it does, and that would be your problem wouldn't it?

you said growth as the next step. how can you prove growth occurs, because you could just be a boltzman brain having a dream, where everything you see is an illusion?

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

We are all living in trauma. Even the most successful among us are operating under a state of unresolved emotional trauma that passes down from generation to generation and perpetuates itself through childhood experiences and unmet needs. This is inherent within our society and is the reason why there is racism, sexism, classicism and government elites. It effects decision making and overall mental and emotional state in your everyday life as well as causing you to not be as focused and aware as you potentially can be and slows down progress in many disciplines including science.

If they were to resolve those deep emotional and psychological issues then they would be able to discover the origin of dark matter and the bizarre nature of subatomic particles behaving the way they do. They would be able to do advanced calculations in their head without writing it down like how we can think of 2+2=4.

They are completely unaware of the socialization that has encapsulated their minds and their personality to fit the standard of other scientists before them and the regulations they had to follow in the science establishment.

Science cannot move forward unless it incorporates the study of psychology and metaphysical concepts and methods which will be difficult seeing as how they see anything that has some kind of mystical quality to be fantasy and delusion. But nevertheless that is what has to change in order for our society to move forward and create genuine awareness of the world around us and how it really operates.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I think we have our wires crossed. This is getting into semantics really hard, but these things do really have different meanings. Proofs are pretty much the realm of math (or other formal logics). Refuting the null hypothesis is the engine of science.

A scientist would never try to prove the big bang. They would test that their observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the big bang did not occur.

Laughing.

Ok.

We live on a flat Earth too.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

how do you mean it stands alone? because i think it does, and that would be your problem wouldn't it?

??

No. We agree it stands alone. I guess you did not see the question mark.

Where I learned English, that question marked no sort of means yes. Apologies for throwing you off.

how do you mean it stands alone? because i think it does, and that would be your problem wouldn't it?

you said growth as the next step. how can you prove growth occurs, because you could just be a boltzman brain having a dream, where everything you see is an illusion?

We first self recognize and think something like, I think therefor I am, as babies. That is why I said we just grow from there.

What happens in insane minds, I have no ideas on.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

We are all living in trauma.

I and statistics disagree.

trauma

NOUN

1. a deeply distressing or disturbing experience.
   
   Doug Stanhope: Voice of America - FEAR IN THE U.S. NEWS MEDIA - YouTube
   
   Regards
   DL
   
   

 

[extropy]

??

No. We agree it stands alone. I guess you did not see the question mark.

Where I learned English, that question marked no sort of means yes. Apologies for throwing you off.

your english is fine, it may be mine that's the problem. but perhaps we mean something different by stand alone. i mean stand alone in the sense that from there, nothing else can be truly considered fact. there is no logical step you can take to derive 100% certainty.

We first self recognize and think something like, I think therefor I am, as babies. That is why I said we just grow from there.

What happens in insane minds, I have no ideas on.

Regards
DL

i think you're just saying the same thing as before, growth. i don't see how you can prove growth. how can you be certain you're not imagining everything after the cogito?