who believes in god

[kazahana]

You can make philosophic arguments about "is the stone really falling" or "is it really a stone" all you want, but that isn't truth.

I beg to differ - the philosophic argument is very important, and you can't prove it's not the truth, but I'm not challenging you to. I'm stating that it's (unlikely but) possible that our senses are completely wrong.

I would rather never establish the real truth than accept a false one.

That's fine - this is why I said we can't debate. You have the belief that what you see is refutable ("do I really exist?") and I have the belief that what I see is irrefutable ("yeah, you're standing right in front of me, 100 other people can see you, I'd say you exist.")

For the last time, I'm not using that as a means to refute science. I'm saying science is taken on faith no matter how much you insist its fundamental principles are truths - they aren't.

But importantly I have also said I think a scientific explanation is the most likely idea because it's based from the smallest assumptions we can make - that our logic is sound and that are senses give us a fairly accurate and real idea about the universe.

I intended to imply two cases of sensory failure - one being that what we see might not be reality, but also that our senses aren't accurate.

Suppose we take your example of gravity - we can indeed see an object falling toward the earth. But when it comes to taking measurements, that relies on human senses which are inaccurate. If we design equipment to take measurements for us - this relies on human manufacture which again is far from precise on a level beyond that which our eyes can see. This is enough for me to suggest that any fundamental measurement is an approximation, no matter how insignificant. You can't even prove the claim that the error would be the same each time. An approximation does not constitute a truth. Laws built from these approximations therefore cannot be laws because they are imprecise. There is also the problem of not seeing the whole picture, because we are unable to.

You cite Newton's law of gravitation but neglect to mention that electro-magnetic waves do not conform to Newton's laws of motion. As a result Einstein's theory of relativity is commonly accepted as an explanation of this behaviour. Surely a law which is a "statement of fact" must account for everything, unless that law was in fact a theory based on the facts available. Surely then, since we don't know all the facts - any "law" is a theory until such time that we know all the facts.

There can't be any laws until the true nature of the universe is known - perhaps the properties smallest fundamental unit(s) and how these units interact. To help us discover this, we need to rely on approximations and theories which are based from our faith in our imperfect senses and logic.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Thank you very much!! She's our first baby after 11 years married and 2 miscarriages, so you can imagine how happy we are.

Indeed, congratulations!

[quoteI was raised as catholic, and when I was a kid, I did follow almost every aspect of the religion. But I grow up, and learn about the church's atrocities through history, and of course, disappointed. Now I almost never go to mass or follow my religion. But that has nothing to do with my faith in God and/or Jesus.[/QUOTE]

It is disappointing...each church DOES have its atrocities and mistakes. But unfortunately what's in the past, what was done by dead people, isn't something we can have any control over.

 

[Boomcoach]

edit: as for atheists 'converting' people, i have experienced just as many atheists as theists trying to convert me to their religions. the atheists simply try to disprove my own religion such that i would renounce it and become one such as they. i welcome such challenges, as thus far they have not succeeded in providing me sufficient evidence to change my mind on what i have found to be 'truth' as i see it.

This line amazes me. I have been an atheist for about 30 years. In that time I have met, at most, a couple dozen other atheists. Even if every one of those atheists was actively trying to convert me (if I was not an atheist), they would still be well behind the number of active attempts by theists to convert me. By active, I mean coming to my door, stopping me on the street or outside a mall, not simply the hundreds of coworkers and family who have asked me about it within a conversation. By the mere fact that theists heavily outweigh atheists (in the US at least) it surprises me that you have met that many proslytizing atheists.

 

[Boomcoach]

Well...

I think the keyword here is Faith. I have found a renewed faith recently, my baby girl born a month ago, and nobody I know, could deny God existence after watch his/her first born child coming out of the womb and cry for the first time... the miracle of life.

Congratulations on starting the amazing/chaotic/sleepless and ultimately rewarding process of parenthood!

As an atheist father of two, I do have to dispute what you have said. I have experienced that process twice, and also the miscarriage (only as the father, not firsthand) of our first pregnancy. While it is an amzing event, I found nothing in it that made me think of any God.

I have raised my kids for 18 and 14 years, respectively; am about to send my oldest off to college and took my younger to Gigantour last week (which led me here, to a wonderfully civilized dicussion of a difficult topic.) During the good times, and the bad, I found strength in my wife, in friends and in family, as well as within myself, but never felt any need to look for it through what is, to me, superstition.

 

[Korona]

It depends on how you define "proven". If you come from the belief (it is only a belief, mind you) that NOTHING can be proven, then there's nothing that can change your mind. However, if you live in reality (that is, That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense -- NOT the philisophical "reality") there are fundamental laws which are truths. For example, if I observe that standing on the Earth and releasing a stone causes it to fall to the ground AND everyone else on the Earth can observe the exact same thing - THAT is truth. You can make philosophic arguments ...

And where does this world of laws and order arise? From the dischordant senses or from the unifying mind? The world you describe is ordered under categories (meaning 2) but such things are not percievable. You cannot witness a cause, you cannot percieve a "thing", you cannot understand a converstation, without the mind giving order and structure to the raw sense data. The "real" world is reliant upon its being created by our minds and is only as stable as the conceptual scheme under which it is ordered.

Actually no, a scientific law is a fundamental - that means there cannot be any lack of confidence. It is an absolute. It has always been perceived to be as it is and it will always be perceived as it is (well, unless you're standing on the surface of a black hole). eg. A rock released on the surface of the Earth will always fall towards the earth (Newton's Law of Gravitation).

Yes exactly. Any loss of faith removes not only the validity of the concept but the very possibility of its existing. The world is simply incomprehensible and meaningless if you remove the explanatory framework that suppourts it. What facinates me is that not only is it theoretically possible to remove a conceptual scheme, but it happens again and again and again, throughout the history of science and human development. The world of the past is truely different, not only a different time but percieved and experianced differently too.

 

[Fossil Records]

You cite Newton's law of gravitation but neglect to mention that electro-magnetic waves do not conform to Newton's laws of motion.

Since we're at a "philisophical" stalemate, I won't prolong this discussion.
Basically, the argument is that I support the fact "1+1 ALWAYS equals 2" and you support the idea that "1+1 doesn't ALWAYS equal 2."

However, I have to point out that Newton's Laws of Motion do not consider electro-magnetic waves at all so they cannot be applied at all. Newton's Laws of Motion all deal with MASS. Since electromagnetic waves do not have mass (though they can be said to have other particle-like properties and IMPOSE mass) they are principally irrelevant to Newtonian Mechanics.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is only related to Newton's Laws of Motion (principally Inertia) in that if any frame of reference in which Newton's Law of Inertia holds (for some period of time) it becomes an inertial frame of reference. From the laws of mechanics it follows that, if one such inertial frame exists, then an infinity of them must. All frames of reference (and only such frames) moving with constant velocity with respect to a given inertial frame are also inertial frames.

 

[Rose Immortal]

This line amazes me. I have been an atheist for about 30 years. In that time I have met, at most, a couple dozen other atheists. Even if every one of those atheists was actively trying to convert me (if I was not an atheist), they would still be well behind the number of active attempts by theists to convert me. By active, I mean coming to my door, stopping me on the street or outside a mall, not simply the hundreds of coworkers and family who have asked me about it within a conversation. By the mere fact that theists heavily outweigh atheists (in the US at least) it surprises me that you have met that many proslytizing atheists.

I went years ago to a school where some people founded a club that was frankly quite aggressive towards theists, and they caused a pretty major controversy. It wasn't pretty...they really went out of their way to belittle believers.

Ironic...a holier-than-thou attitude from a group that claimed that nothing was holy.

(Sorry...I couldn't resist the pun.)

 

[Fossil Records]

I went years ago to a school where some people founded a club that was frankly quite aggressive towards theists, and they caused a pretty major controversy. It wasn't pretty...they really went out of their way to belittle believers.

It sounds to me like they were just being asses. Hopefully they got what was coming to them. Even though I'm atheist, I'm not going to tell you your belief is wrong. I've had many good discussions though with people comparing and contrasting theism, atheism, polytheism, pantheism, and religions. Heck, I've got the Bible, the Apocrypha, the book of Mormon, etc. on my shelves because they're all interesting. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an English translation of the Quran, yet.

 

[kazahana]

Since we're at a "philisophical" stalemate, I won't prolong this discussion.
Basically, the argument is that I support the fact "1+1 ALWAYS equals 2" and you support the idea that "1+1 doesn't ALWAYS equal 2."

No. For about three posts I have stressed "1+1 might not always equal 2, but it is incredibly probable that 1+1 always equals 2, and while it is not provable that 1+1 always equals 2, it is accepted on faith by most people including myself that 1+1 always equals 2 because it works according to our inherent understanding of logic and can be observed by our imperfect and potentially fallible senses". In addition I mentioned the fact that any attempt at making accurate measurements will result in failure because our senses are unable to discern things accurately after a certain point, and principles derived from these approximations are not truths or laws.

However, I have to point out that Newton's Laws of Motion do not consider electro-magnetic waves at all so they cannot be applied at all. Newton's Laws of Motion all deal with MASS. Since electromagnetic waves do not have mass (though they can be said to have other particle-like properties and IMPOSE mass) they are principally irrelevant to Newtonian Mechanics.

My point wasn't the physics in detail, rather that the "law" of motion doesn't quite cover how all things move, regardless of whether they have mass or not. You addressed the physics rather than the actual issue which was that Newton created a law without fully understanding the nature of the universe which as far as I'm concerned makes any law a theory.

 

[Korona]

You can get the Bible, Quran and book of Mormon online here : http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
I like this site but its misleading to portray these books as though they were meant to be rational arguements.

Since we're at a "philisophical" stalemate, I won't prolong this discussion.
Basically, the argument is that I support the fact "1+1 ALWAYS equals 2" and you support the idea that "1+1 doesn't ALWAYS equal 2."

1+1 always equals 2, but why? The reason is that to be able to use maths means already accepting the rules of mathamatics. To say that 1+1 doesnt equal 2 (except for very large or small values for 1 and 2) is to not use maths. You can search forever but you wont find a disproof of maths inside of maths. Its nonsense. A simmilar thing exists in science, you cannot "disproove science", speaking the language of science means you already accept the rules of science. The paradigm must be accepted before the system will make sense.
Science is for the most part internally coherant. When it is shown not to be it is rejected and a new science is adopted. It is worth reiterating though that the scientific world relies on a stable and coherant world, one with "truths to be discovered". This world ONLY exists because our minds create it.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Actually, this is completely erroneous (with all due respect). Science relies on truth - NOT faith. Faith is based upon an unprovable belief (again, by definition). Science is not science unless it can be proven time and time again. Sure, there's been faulty "science" done (cold fusion, anyone?), but that's not considered science by scientists (as myself).


Nor should there be. Many scientists believe that their work is merely an attempt to understand and measure God's creation. I have no problem with that, I just feel that I am attempting to understand and measure the universe. In a broad sense, it's all really the same thing.

1. no, its not erroneous at all. science is constantly disproving itself as it evolves, as our knowledge itself evolves. when we thought the world was flat, because we could look all around and see a flat disc, that was fact. fact is a popularly held or expertly given opinion. it is not concrete. when we saw the world from space, and learned to travel around it, its spherical nature became fact, disproving a previous theory. all science can offer is theoretical testable explanations that are verifiable to a certain margin of error. because of this margin of error, nothing can be certainly proven by science. thus, to believe that such proof exists is a matter of faith. those who believe otherwise are only misleading themselves.

2. the second paragraph i agree.

 

[Beelzebub]

1. Fossil Records, go to any bookstore. In the Religion section they generally sell Qur'ans in Arabic with English translations.

2. I don't see how you can have non absolute thoughts. It just doesn't make sense to me, it's as if you're saying that facts are subjective.

 

[Kenneth R.]

facts are subjective... they are established opinions.

 

[Beelzebub]

Established opinions? I'm sorry, but I have better things to do than to sit around all day and contemplate the color of snow. Is it white? What is white? What if it's really blue but we just call it white? Give me a fucking break. If I throw a vase on the ground, the thing is going to break. How can you deny these obvious truths? I think everyone is just trying to be philosophical and thoughtful for the sake of it.

 

[Kenneth R.]

or oversimplify for want of a simple answer.

all i'm saying is science is not absolute. it is constantly being re-written, and thus because such a thing remains at least a fraction uncertain, it requires faith to be certain.

 

[Fossil Records]

No. For about three posts I have stressed "1+1 might not always equal 2, but it is incredibly probable that 1+1 always equals 2,

Um, you say that "it is incredibly probable that 1+1 always equals 2" but all of your arguments are in support of "1+1 might not always equal 2". I didn't say that it's your full belief - I said you support the argument.

You addressed the physics rather than the actual issue which was that Newton created a law without fully understanding the nature of the universe which as far as I'm concerned makes any law a theory.

Now we're just arguing to argue. Newton created a theory based on physical masses. Over the last few centuries, that theory has become a law because it has continued to apply and cannot be envisioned to falter so long as physical constants remain the same. The law is specific and within those specifications it always happens the same way.

You don't have to KNOW everything about the Universe in order to make an observation that is under all circumstances true. If you cut your arm off with a hatchet - it will hurt. If I cut my arm off with a hatchet - it will hurt. If ANYONE ANYWHERE cuts their arm off with a hatchet - IT WILL HURT. That is an observation that anyone everywhere can make. No matter how much we debate what "is" is, cutting your arm off will hurt. Let's call that "Gary's Law." (oh, that's me by the way)

 

[Kenneth R.]

if your arm is so frostbitten or burned that you have no nerve endings, it will not hurt. but let's say you have a healthy arm. if you've anasthesized it, for whatever reason, it won't hurt. just one example that such appearingly simple laws are not certain.

 

[Valgeir]

Faith in science and faith in religion are not the same. "Faith" in science is based on testable and falsifiable hypotheses, and they must turn out consistently and demonstratably as true before they are "accepted," while "faith" as it refers to religion is not based on logical proof or material evidence. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Fossil Records]

You can get the Bible, Quran and book of Mormon online here : http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
I like this site but its misleading to portray these books as though they were meant to be rational arguements.

Cool thanks - I should have specified that I meant around here (the Midwest) I can't find them in stores. I'm probably going to end up buying it from that website or another like it.

 

[Beelzebub]

Things are simple, people just overcomplicate them.