One second please.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

A Dr. Rocket posted a peice on the definition of God, which basically concludes after various definitions as either illogical in science or unobtainable by the process of the same. Might i interject that out science walks the same path as Dr. Rockets definitions of God, when it is held to the standards of all existence encompasses. In fact a good 95 percent of all, is quite frankly unknow or doesnt really conform to what we gleened from our little corner here on this planet or should i say dimension/program etc . The house (moderator) posted Dr. Rockets dogma as law, thereby diluting the point of having a page devoted to the abstract concept, entitiled Religion. In light of all we don't know about either subject god and science why is it law to take the one over the other. Suppose I defined God as the material cause of all things, whatever that material may reveal itself to be in science, who can disagree. Perhaps that material is beyond our science like the factual definition of dark matter, what becomes of discovery with this censorship.

[John Cuthber]

Suppose I defined God as the material cause of all things, whatever that material may reveal itself to be in science, who can disagree.

Well, I can disagree.

What evidence is there for any "cause" other than "it just happened"?

Also, if that "cause" is abstract enough then it doesn't fulfil the requirements of what "God" usually means.

As far as I'm aware, all the established definitions of God require that He has intent.

If there is a cause without intent, it's not really a God.

Of course, you can define God as rice pudding, in which case He certainly exists, but it doesn't get you very far.

[elfmotat]

This looks like the classic "God of the gaps" argument. People always say "God must be the cause of X, because we don't know how it works." The problem is, eventually we do figure out how it works. And when we do, God shrinks.

 

Also, great name:

[Strange]

Might i interject that out science walks the same path as Dr. Rockets definitions of God, when it is held to the standards of all existence encompasses. In fact a good 95 percent of all, is quite frankly unknow or doesnt really conform to what we gleened from our little corner here on this planet or should i say dimension/program etc .

 

Dr Rocket didn't provide any definitions of god, he just pointed out the problems that there is no definition.

 

I don't understand how you think this relates to science. Science deals with things that are well defined and objectively measurable. Almost the exact opposite of god.

 

The house (moderator) posted Dr. Rockets dogma as law, thereby diluting the point of having a page devoted to the abstract concept, entitiled Religion.

 

There is no point to a section for religion on a science forum. I don't know why it is here.

 

Perhaps that material is beyond our science like the factual definition of dark matter

 

Dark matter isn't beyond science. We only know about it because of science.

 

what becomes of discovery with this censorship.

 

What censorship?

[StringJunky]

Strange, on 28 Sept 2014 - 9:46 PM, said:Strange, on 28 Sept 2014 - 9:46 PM, said:

 

...There is no point to a section for religion on a science forum. I don't know why it is here.

It is a place for people to talk about religious matters from a disciplined and objective perspective - which is part and parcel of being scientific - that they may not find anywhere else. It's existence also shows that this forum is not closed-minded and therefore not dogmatic in the eyes of those with religious leanings, unlike those forums that lack one. It is a place for those with such leanings to challenge the scientific consensus and hopefully - extremely rarely though - alter their world view to a more objective one. it also interesting to some with scientific leanings to discuss religious perspectives, impact on society and it's evolution as a sociological exercise.

Edited September 28, 2014 by StringJunky

[fiveworlds]

What censorship?

 

We are fairly heavily censored strange.

[Ten oz]

In light of all we don't know about either subject god and science why is it law to take the one over the other. Suppose I defined God as the material cause of all things, whatever that material may reveal itself to be in science, who can disagree. Perhaps that material is beyond our science like the factual definition of dark matter, what becomes of discovery with this censorship.

God as a cause solves nothing. The next immediate question becomes what caused God. If that answer reflects a God that is beyond cause than why can't that be applied to the universe?

In any event starting with God and working forward goes against the scientific process. We should not merely assume their is a God and then proceed to accept it as truth until proven otherwise. All things we know to be true about the universe were proven to be true before gaining acceptance. God should be no different. When god is proven I will accept him/her/it. Until then God remains a wildly speculative concept IMO.

.....btw, no sciences laws or codes of conduct prevents anyone from finding evidence of God.

There is no point to a section for religion on a science forum. I don't know why it is here.

 

Religion has had a huge impact on the science community and all of society in general. It effects the way people think about history and the world as a whole today. Ignoring its psychological, sociological, and historical footprint on humanity wouldn't true to science. Think of all the great scientific minds we lost to religious fanatics. All the potential discoveries that went up in smoke as scientists were burned alive while being order to repent. Today scientist are more free to speak & write but religion is still used as a weapon against them. Religion in part aids the beliefs behind climate denial and evolution denial. In my opinion it should have a place in a science forum.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

We are fairly heavily censored strange.

 

[fiveworlds]

 

Most of it is this kind http://en.flossmanuals.net/bypassing-censorship/ch033_playing-with-dns/ DNS filtering basically we won't see or be able to access certain pages, Like this one http://www.welcome.gpf/

Edited September 28, 2014 by fiveworlds

[swansont]

Most of it is this kind http://en.flossmanuals.net/bypassing-censorship/ch033_playing-with-dns/ DNS filtering basically we won't see or be able to access certain pages, Like this one http://www.welcome.gpf/

 

!

Moderator Note

Unless God is doing the DNS filtering, I don't see the connection. Stay on topic, please

[Dr. Funkenstein]

When I say cause, the crowd automatically goes to the standard philosophical Cause and effect, but that was not the page I was on. Cause being 'Whatever" it turns out to be, like Higgs Boson or god particle as it is called, or ( for lack of a better word) God. that being said why would i rule out a divinity god, when the data is lacking on all accounts, as much as it is in having a complete understanding of science in all it applies too.

 

My original point is that, this section of this page is for Religion, that topic therefore is built upon a god head figure. So why have the page if the house is going to dictate the law concerning it's opinion on a definition of god. To me that's like taking the hydrogen out of H2O.

 

I can see if the conversation was about the atomic number of Gold, which we can all agree is factual. On God, no one knows factually rather it is, or is not, despite what your vaunted intellect may suggest. An intellect by the way, which you can't fully explain where it comes from, and the purpose of, Factually speaking.

 

I am not here to play games with you people, I take the whole of this site for its literal meaning" Forum" by definition, a place for open discussion. and it doesn't seem right for censorship to be applied by any one here, especially when the subject matter is not generally considered offense to any one.

[John Cuthber]

OK let's cut to the chase.

There is "censorship" on this site.

I can't say "All the (group of people) are (derogatory term)." without offering valid proof of that statement.

But that's not what you seem to be talking about,

 

What are you saying that we are not allowed to say?

What is "forbidden"?

[Strange]

When I say cause, the crowd automatically goes to the standard philosophical Cause and effect, but that was not the page I was on.

 

If "cause" does not mean the same as "cause" in "cause and effect", then perhaps you need to define what the word does mean to you.

 

like Higgs Boson

 

Why do people latch on to the Higgs boson as if it were some magical answer to life the universe and everything. Why not the photon or the gluon?

 

or god particle as it is called, or ( for lack of a better word) God.

 

Apart from the stupid nickname, the Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with God. (Unless, of course, you believe that God created it along with everything else.)

 

My original point is that, this section of this page is for Religion, that topic therefore is built upon a god head figure. So why have the page if the house is going to dictate the law concerning it's opinion on a definition of god.

 

There is no such "law" or definition.

 

You are free to present your definition of God or god and discuss it.

 

 

I am not here to play games with you people, I take the whole of this site for its literal meaning" Forum" by definition, a place for open discussion. and it doesn't seem right for censorship to be applied by any one here

 

Again, what censorship.

Most of it is this kind http://en.flossmanuals.net/bypassing-censorship/ch033_playing-with-dns/ DNS filtering basically we won't see or be able to access certain pages, Like this one http://www.welcome.gpf/

 

I am curious, so you can explain here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85789-dns-filtering-and-censorship/

Edited September 29, 2014 by Strange

[Ten oz]

When I say cause, the crowd automatically goes to the standard philosophical Cause and effect, but that was not the page I was on. Cause being 'Whatever" it turns out to be, like Higgs Boson or god particle as it is called, or ( for lack of a better word) God. that being said why would i rule out a divinity god, when the data is lacking on all accounts, as much as it is in having a complete understanding of science in all it applies too.

 

My original point is that, this section of this page is for Religion, that topic therefore is built upon a god head figure. So why have the page if the house is going to dictate the law concerning it's opinion on a definition of god. To me that's like taking the hydrogen out of H2O.

 

I can see if the conversation was about the atomic number of Gold, which we can all agree is factual. On God, no one knows factually rather it is, or is not, despite what your vaunted intellect may suggest. An intellect by the way, which you can't fully explain where it comes from, and the purpose of, Factually speaking.

 

I am not here to play games with you people, I take the whole of this site for its literal meaning" Forum" by definition, a place for open discussion. and it doesn't seem right for censorship to be applied by any one here, especially when the subject matter is not generally considered offense to any one.

I think there is a big difference between being disagreed with and outright censored. This forum has allowed you to post your thoughts. This thread has not been locked or deleted. The censorship I see comes in the form of keeping posters on topic and preventing language that may turn people away from the site. Sometimes when a poster makes statements of fact that are inaccurate a moderator with point it out or perhaps censor the comment. Simply adding the words "in my opinion" to a comment will prevent that in a lot of cases. From what I have seen this forum allows all posts so long as they are on topic, supported by facts, or stated as personal opinions. For example a moderator might give me a warning if I post "it is a fact that the flood happened and Noah's was real". However if I say "I believe in the flood and the story of Noah" no warning would follow. Edited September 29, 2014 by Ten oz

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The pinned post on the theard of religion is in a fact censorship, like a flag warning vistors that belief in A God is not permitted here on the religion page, by the house, who certainly has a role to play, but seperation of churh and state is diametrical , if thats not the case then remove the pin, or remove the religion theard, or the best action stay out of it.

[elfmotat]

I'm not really sure how someone's opinion can count as censorship. You're more than welcome to believe in whatever you want.

[Strange]

The pinned post on the theard of religion is in a fact censorship, like a flag warning vistors that belief in A God is not permitted here on the religion page, by the house, who certainly has a role to play, but seperation of churh and state is diametrical , if thats not the case then remove the pin, or remove the religion theard, or the best action stay out of it.

 

I just read that post again.

 

Dr Rocket points out the problem that there is no consistent defintion of God which makes many discussions futile. He then considers a couple of classes of defintions and shows that one would be in conflict with science and the other has no connection to science.

 

If anything, I would have thought it could be an interesting starting point for a discussion, rather moaning about non-existent censorship.

 

You are not being censored. Except perhaps by yourself, in that you refuse to have an intelligent discussion about the subject.

[John Cuthber]

The pinned post on the theard of religion is in a fact censorship, like a flag warning vistors that belief in A God is not permitted here on the religion page, by the house, who certainly has a role to play, but seperation of churh and state is diametrical , if thats not the case then remove the pin, or remove the religion theard, or the best action stay out of it.

What does the "censorship" stop me saying?

[Phi for All]

The pinned post on the theard of religion is in a fact censorship, like a flag warning vistors that belief in A God is not permitted here on the religion page, by the house, who certainly has a role to play, but seperation of churh and state is diametrical , if thats not the case then remove the pin, or remove the religion theard, or the best action stay out of it.

 

No, it's not. It's a reminder to read the rules before posting. Oh, wait, you're going to tell me that rules are censorship, aren't you?

 

I guess just about anything is bad if you torture the definition of it enough.

[Strange]

I guess just about anything is bad if you torture the definition of it enough.

 

So now we have censorship and torture.

[Phi for All]

 

So now we have censorship and torture.

 

Looking more like the Religion section all the time.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

A sign, post or pinned attachments on the religion wall stating that God without definition, is not arguable here on the religious thread, is a form of censorship to the unsuspecting, maybe first time visitor, for the house opinions to be so up front and in concurrence with. smells like censorship to me, but perhaps the word is out already and visitor rarely drop by, in such a case by all means run the thread as you see fit. Or maybe being pinned and locked came off to me as House stated policy. whatever, Peace to you all.

[Ten oz]

A sign, post or pinned attachments on the religion wall stating that God without definition, is not arguable here on the religious thread, is a form of censorship to the unsuspecting, maybe first time visitor, for the house opinions to be so up front and in concurrence with.

So the "house" should censor itself to ensure first time religious visitors feel welcome?

[elfmotat]

A sign, post or pinned attachments on the religion wall stating that God without definition, is not arguable here on the religious thread, is a form of censorship

 

What? That's just logic. If what we're discussing is not well-defined then there is nothing objective or falsifiable to have a discussion about. Which means we're not doing science. This is a science board after all.

 

And while we're talking about definitions, you should look up the definition of "censorship."

[Strange]

A sign, post or pinned attachments on the religion wall stating that God without definition, is not arguable here on the religious thread

 

But it doesn't say that. You are inventing objections that don't exist.

 

Why not say what you want to say and see if it is "censored".