who believes in god

[control-denied777]

someone should delete this thread

 

[Kenneth R.]

someone should delete this thread

it seems pertinent enough considering Russell Allen's would-be answer to this question.

 

[Boomcoach]

With regard to the world being flat, religious leaders declared the Earth was flat. The few scientists who took the facts (there was a cyclic nature to the movement of the stars which, when traced behaved more like a pendulum ball; the masts of ships appeared to disappear in the distance as they sailed away; etc.) theorized that the Earth was round. Some of them were killed - the others chose to "believe" the Earth was flat in order to save their skins.

The world was shown to be round well before the apocryphal birth of Christ, by the Greeks, who even calculated the size to a reasonable degree of error.

 

[Fossil Records]

The world was shown to be round well before the apocryphal birth of Christ, by the Greeks, who even calculated the size to a reasonable degree of error.

That is exceptionally correct - I can't remember the Greek who is credited with the proposal (Erasthmus maybe?) but it's considered the Ptolemaic Theory of a Spherical Earth.

I should have been much more clear in my comment - but I've typed way more than I intended in this thread and have gotten lazy.

One of the GREAT things religions supply is communication. Whether it was to remark on how to stay healthy, "global" news, or local news religious gatherings serve(d) as social as well as spiritual events. When I said "religious leaders declared" I meant:

The flat-earth theory was accepted by the church (and why not? it made sense and the Bible seemed to suggest it was so*) and disseminated by preachers, priests, and missionaries. The Catholic Church pursued this during the sixth century when it was beginning its period of establishing itself as the sole authority on religion and science. And keep in mind, I'm not just talking Christians here - Hebrew, Muslims (admittedly all based on the same original tenents), Hindu (they didn't get into spherical-earth until about the same time that the Catholic Church was presenting flat-earth), Sumerian, etc.

Many followers of Ptolemy rejected the flat-earth theory and were quieted because they contradicted dogmatic law. Then, when Copernicus and Galileo stirred the pot the church had had enough.

_________________________________________________________________

*I know someone's going to say, "Where in the Bible does it say the Earth is flat." It doesn't. However, the flat-earth theory was defended "in the day" with the following:

"I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth; the tree grew and became strong, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” Old Testament, Daniel 4:10-11. This statement makes no sense for spherical earth.

“The devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” New Testament, Matthew 4:8. From a sufficiently high mountain, one could see all the kingdoms of the world -- if the earth were flat.

_________________________________________________________________

Again, not making a judgement call - just clarifying.

 

[Rose Immortal]

it seems pertinent enough considering Russell Allen's would-be answer to this question.

That's actually true...he DOES seem to have silently declared his answer if you look at the right photos of him.

 

[jo jo]

dang i posted up this thread and now its way too much to read

iw ould read it but i dont like to read so have fun with this ya guys

 

[DoktorShred]

I don't believe in God but I believe in the survival of the consiousness. This is because consiousness is merely the state of experiencing things, and we do not need this to survive. Everything the brain does can be explained by motor actions, and therefore someone who was totally unconsious could still survive just as well, and behave exactly the same as someone who was consious. Contrary to popular belief it doesn't actually affect our ability to make decisions at all; many people confuse it with conscience, but this is also infact totally unrelated to consiousness, as our state of mind and ability to funtion is entirely determined by the 'data in ---->process--->action out' system in our brain, and to some degree hormones aswell.

Therefore, we do not need a consiousness to have evolved to our current state, as it does not contribute to our fitness for survival in any way. We did not evolve a consiousness, and this means that we must have it for some other purpose. My personal belief is that consiousness is a property present in every molecule in the universe, and something about the brain is a valve on this universal consiousness. When the brain dies, the vale is turned off. There is evidence to suggest that microtubles in neurone cells in the brain are involved in the generation of consiousness.

I read this idea on philosophy from a guy called 'David Darling' who is an astrophysicist who has written loads of interesting books about aliens, space, the mind, all sorts of really interesting things. I found out about him because he studied at my university and his work is really cool.

 

[kazahana]

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".

Yes. Even though it's highly unlikely 1+1 might not equal 2, it still must be considered, and not considering it is tantamout to dimissing a concept because it's too difficult. I want the truth, not a simple fallacy.
I have also declared that I take the former on faith so I don't need to argue for that. I'm arguing that you take it on faith in your inherent logic and senses as well. But you dismiss those as being "philosophical" because you can't scientifically disprove them, and that apparently makes them irrelevant, which is a very closed minded attitude, but I'll put them aside for the time being and focus on something which isn't "philosophical".

You have ignored my proposition that at some point in any scientific development that has required a precision measurement, imperfect human senses will certainly be accountable for some tiny and likely inconsistent error. Perhaps the error is not significant in general, but an inaccuracy nonetheless resulting in not exact figures, but approximations, and laws derived from these figures are therefore not laws but unprovable theories.

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.

I beg to differ and I'm certainly not being philosophical for the sake of it - that's an integral part of what we're discussing here. I'm presenting arguments to show that even science is taken on faith and there is nothing we can know for certain in order to establish that even if you think you have proved something exactly, you haven't because:

1. Logic is a product of our brains.
2. Our senses might give us a completely deceiving picture of the universe.
3. Scientific development relies on imperfect human senses for approximations.

Please don't rubbish philosophy when it's as rational as science is - they both rely on the same logic.

my point being that just because someone decreed that the world was flat based on certain 'evidence', and many believed (and of course some did not), did not make it so, just as any theory today. that fact is opinion. that science can only present compelling evidence with which to either augment or overwrite what we have come to "know".

This says succinctly what I was trying to get at with the Newtonian laws - that science overwrites its previous ideas. The way I see it is as a series of models, and no more than models. We're trying to describe the behaviour of the universe, and we can indeed describe it, but only to an extent - not perfectly and certainly not well enough to declare a law.

someone should delete this thread

Why?

 

[Beelzebub]

I beg to differ and I'm certainly not being philosophical for the sake of it - that's an integral part of what we're discussing here. I'm presenting arguments to show that even science is taken on faith and there is nothing we can know for certain in order to establish that even if you think you have proved something exactly, you haven't because:

1. Logic is a product of our brains.
2. Our senses might give us a completely deceiving picture of the universe.
3. Scientific development relies on imperfect human senses for approximations.

Please don't rubbish philosophy when it's as rational as science is - they both rely on the same logic.

I'm not saying that philosophy is rubbish; if you want to stare at leaves and wonder why they are the way they are then go ahead, knock yourself out. I find it alarming that you are dismissing hundreds of years worth of scientific discoveries just because humans are imperfect.

 

[Fossil Records]

You have ignored my proposition that at some point in any scientific development that has required a precision measurement, imperfect human senses will certainly be accountable for some tiny and likely inconsistent error. Perhaps the error is not significant in general, but an inaccuracy nonetheless resulting in not exact figures, but approximations, and laws derived from these figures are therefore not laws but unprovable theories.

As I've already said before, LAWS are generalized so they have nothing to do with precision measurements - why do you continue to assert that they do?

When we dose an animal with drug, take a blood sample, and measure the amount of drug in the blood, yes, it is an approximation. And as long as we understand that and can approximate the error involved we can make assertions regarding what was measured. However, for the most part, measurements that we are taking are relative so the actual magnitude is irrelevant - the ratio of the values is what is relevant.

 

[Fossil Records]

Please don't rubbish philosophy when it's as rational as science is - they both rely on the same logic.

No, philosophy is as LOGICAL as science is - but it isn't RATIONAL. THAT is our argument. We take the things that can be seen, measured, and touched. You say that it takes FAITH to believe what we're seeing - our argument is that it doesn't. By definition (again), FAITH is the support of something that CANNOT be seen, measured, and touched.

Science is the application of LOGIC to RATIONAL events.

Philosophy (as it is now definted - remember, the sciences used to philosophies) is the application of LOGIC to IRRATIONAL events.

No matter how you dance around it - there are the differences between the two. You can try to confuse people with semantics, but confusion isn't bringing anyone closer to understanding.

And we're not rubbishing philosophy - merely trying to correct the misunderstandings and/or misteachings that people have received on science. Science's purpose isn't to disprove God or disprove other philosophies. Science's purpose is to give an explanation to why things are the way they are. Thousands of years ago, people looked up at the sky and said, "Why is the sky blue?" Before optics, the philosophical answer was, "God made it that way." Science came along and said, "Actually, the relative refraction of the color spectrum as the sun's rays hit the Earth's atmosphere cause the color blue to be bent more towards the surface than the other colors." Religious scientists add, "And that's the way God made the sky blue."

 

[Fossil Records]

This says succinctly what I was trying to get at with the Newtonian laws - that science overwrites its previous ideas. The way I see it is as a series of models, and no more than models. We're trying to describe the behaviour of the universe, and we can indeed describe it, but only to an extent - not perfectly and certainly not well enough to declare a law.

Huh? You're obviously not paying attention to the definitions. Theories and Hypotheses always get "overwritten." LAWs are generalizations - there's nothing "perfect" about them. If you're driving in a car and slam on the brakes, you're going to feel inertia "pull" you forward. That's it. There's nothing mystical or "perfect" about it.

 

[Rafaga]

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

Indeed!!!

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.

That's fine, and is the main reason I still believe is just a matter of faith. I just can't see life without the prescence of something divine, superior, God. I refuse to accept the fact that we're just a bunch of specialized thinking cells, or monkeys who's tail fell down for some misterious reasons (the missing link).

Congrats on your kids, it's great you took one of them to gigantour, I hope I can do the same someday with my kid too

 

[kazahana]

I'm not saying that philosophy is rubbish; if you want to stare at leaves and wonder why they are the way they are then go ahead, knock yourself out. I find it alarming that you are dismissing hundreds of years worth of scientific discoveries just because humans are imperfect.

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not. I am establishing that science cannot be proved to be the truth although it's the best description we have. At some point you are making assumptions - taking things on faith. However as science is based on the smallest assumptions we can make, it is much more sensible to follow logical steps based from these assumptions which is what science is, than it is to believe the groundless claims made by some religions.

I'm supporting science for crying out loud - but I'm also admitting it is not perfect, as was the implication at the start of the argument!

As I've already said before, LAWS are generalized so they have nothing to do with precision measurements - why do you continue to assert that they do?

And what of laws that require a constant which must derived from measurements. For example Newton's law of gravitation which uses the gravitational constant. Are you telling me this constant is an inherent truth that you know, or that you can prove to me that our calculation of the gravitational constant is absolutely correct?

When we dose an animal with drug, take a blood sample, and measure the amount of drug in the blood, yes, it is an approximation. And as long as we understand that and can approximate the error involved we can make assertions regarding what was measured. However, for the most part, measurements that we are taking are relative so the actual magnitude is irrelevant - the ratio of the values is what is relevant.

There's still an error no matter how small and it won't even probably be consistent because it's beyond the limit of human observation. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it disappear.

No, philosophy is as LOGICAL as science is - but it isn't RATIONAL. THAT is our argument.

With all due respect, that's utter rubbish.

We take the things that can be seen, measured, and touched. You say that it takes FAITH to believe what we're seeing - our argument is that it doesn't. By definition (again), FAITH is the support of something that CANNOT be seen, measured, and touched.

If you don't take them on faith, measure your logic then. See your sight. By the statement you just made, you condemned your argument.

Science is the application of LOGIC to RATIONAL events.

Philosophy (as it is now definted - remember, the sciences used to philosophies) is the application of LOGIC to IRRATIONAL events.

No matter how you dance around it - there are the differences between the two. You can try to confuse people with semantics, but confusion isn't bringing anyone closer to understanding.

You accuse me of confusing people with semantics, but you create incorrect definitions. "Philosophy is the application of logic to irrational events"? what on earth are you talking about. Philosophy is the application of logic to anything you want. Perhaps you mean that science primarily deals with numbers, while philosophy is commonly seen as dealing with concepts. But that's irrelevant. I'm not "using philosopy" and I'm not "using science". I'm using logic, which I take on faith.

Thousands of years ago, people looked up at the sky and said, "Why is the sky blue?" Before optics, the philosophical answer was, "God made it that way." Science came along and said, "Actually, the relative refraction of the color spectrum as the sun's rays hit the Earth's atmosphere cause the color blue to be bent more towards the surface than the other colors." Religious scientists add, "And that's the way God made the sky blue."

Thank you for that informative, factual and extremely non-biased brief history of science, philosophy and religion. I think you covered pretty much everything.

 

[Fossil Records]

And what of laws that require a constant which must derived from measurements. For example Newton's law of gravitation which uses the gravitational constant. Are you telling me this constant is an inherent truth that you know, or that you can prove to me that our calculation of the gravitational constant is absolutely correct?

The gravitational constant (and its ilk) is a man-made number, used in a man-made equation, to make man-made units fit each other. This number wasn't "measured", it was calculated to make the units fit each other. Has it been taken out to the 50 millionth significant figure? No - so it's not ever going to be absolutely correct. But it's good enough for the significant figures that scientists deal with.

There's still an error no matter how small and it won't even probably be consistent because it's beyond the limit of human observation. Just because you can't see it, doesn't make it disappear.

Um, yes. That's why I said as long as we understand that it's always going to be there, we can deal with it.

With all due respect, that's utter rubbish.

With all due respect, you need a dictionary and to take some science and philosophy courses. Why would ANY respected philosopher work on providing a logical argument to some rational event? You're argument is that there are philosophers out there (for example) wondering why blue and yellow make green? The guy would only be able to come up with an ILLOGICAL argument to the event - and that's not philosophy. It's (excuse the term) heresy. "Oh, blue and yellow make green because as the two substrates mix a rift is created causing a green essence to be emitted through the rift." Science deals with Rational events (blue + yellow = green); Philosophy, Irrational (what IS "green"?).

Perhaps, what we need to do is define RATIONAL? That which may be given reason. Or, something that can be readily explained. See any basic Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. books.

So what does that make IRRATIONAL? That which may NOT be given reason. Or, something that can NOT be readily explained. Religion is at the forefront. But consider, "Is the universe infinite?" "Are there infinite universes?" "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?" "If a bear farts in the woods, does it make a smell?"

There are, in some circumstances, philosophic scientists who come up with theories to things that don't even exist to science (or, are irrational). Decades before the Atomic Theory was accepted, Einstein et al, explained an atomic relationship between energy and mass. In a sense, he provided an explanation to a phenomena that hadn't (and couldn't have) been seen or explained by science. People needed to have faith to believe any of the things Einstein was proposing (and most didn't). But once science caught up and realized there was a rational event that his theories could be used and applied to it was taken as rote. There's no faith (literal sense; not semantical) required. Simple experimentation by multiple people all around the world, providing the same result, and viola it is either an accepted or unaccepted theory to Scientist X. Faith has nothing to do with it.

If you don't take them on faith, measure your logic then. See your sight. By the statement you just made, you condemned your argument.

Um, no. Perhaps you aren't comprehending.

You accuse me of confusing people with semantics, but you create incorrect definitions.

Do you have a dictionary? Look at the context in which the words are used and you should be able to find the definitions in any dictionary.

I'm done with this argument. It is an argument for the sake of argument. An individual who doesn't (or won't) understand the topic or the language used to explain the topic, cannot possibly debate it. And I've tried desperately to define the language as it would be used by any scientist or philosopher (I'm talking professional, not the guy smoking a joint down at the local pub). If you're REALLY interested in this (and not just arguing for the sake of argument), then get some books by professional philosophers (not scientists like myself; nor pseudo-scientists like Von Daniken or one of the "Science of Star Trek" boobs) and see what they are interested in and how they pursue their theses.

 

[kazahana]

Um, no. Perhaps you aren't comprehending.

I think perhaps I am fully comprehending. Your statement is surely a contradiction:

We take the things that can be seen, measured, and touched. You say that it takes FAITH to believe what we're seeing - our argument is that it doesn't. By definition (again), FAITH is the support of something that CANNOT be seen, measured, and touched.

According to you:
1. Things that can be seen, measured and touched exist absolutely.
2. Faith is the support of something that cannot be seen, measured or touched.
3. You do not have faith in your senses and sense of logic. They are absolutes.

I propose (I assume you don't refute this):
4. It is not possible to see sight, measure logic or touch your senses.

So what am I not comprehending? As far as I can derive from 1 and 4, there is no way to prove that you support your senses which cannot be seen, measured or touch. That means 2 applies to your senses and sense of logic, which means that 3 is a contradiction. In short you have faith in your senses.

Anything being derived from your senses is also therefore equally not provable to be absolute, since it it comes from something which you have faith in.

 

[Fossil Records]

According to you:
1. Things that can be seen, measured and touched exist absolutely.
2. Faith is the support of something that cannot be seen, measured or touched.
3. You do not have faith in your senses and sense of logic. They are absolutes.

I propose (I assume you don't refute this):
4. It is not possible to see sight, measure logic or touch your senses.

Ahhhhh... therein lies the problem. I do refute #4. If I have sight, I believe in what I can see. Logic is not measureable - it is a technique used to explain (Logically True: "There is water falling from that cloud so it is raining."; Logically False: "There are clouds outside so it is raining."). If I have senses, I believe in them as well. Naturally, if I see something I don't comprehend, I will utilize (just because it's my nature) science to explain it. Some people will use philosophy to explain it.

I don't have faith in my senses, I trust my senses.

If I take a face full of anhydrous ammonia and lose the ability to see or smell, I'll have to use other resources to pick up the slack.

 

[kazahana]

The gravitational constant (and its ilk) is a man-made number, used in a man-made equation, to make man-made units fit each other. This number wasn't "measured", it was calculated to make the units fit each other. Has it been taken out to the 50 millionth significant figure? No - so it's not ever going to be absolutely correct. But it's good enough for the significant figures that scientists deal with.

At some point it's been derived from measurements. Yes it's good enough - that's my point. Science is (basically) right. Logic is the best way we have of working things out which is what I have been arguing the whole time.
But initially you were proposing that a scientific law was fact, something set in stone which was completely true, and that science is based on absolute truths which you claim are our observations and sense of logic. I am pointing out our observations are erroneous (even if it's to a minute degree, it's an error and therefore can't be used in a truth) and that as logic is something that is part of your brain and you can't step outside your mind and proof logic from the outside, you can't say for certain the universe obeys your logical principles. However, as with every other time I've iterated this - it probably does, almost certainly does in fact.

You're argument is that there are philosophers out there (for example) wondering why blue and yellow make green? The guy would only be able to come up with an ILLOGICAL argument to the event - and that's not philosophy. It's (excuse the term) heresy. "Oh, blue and yellow make green because as the two substrates mix a rift is created causing a green essence to be emitted through the rift." Science deals with Rational events (blue + yellow = green); Philosophy, Irrational (what IS "green"?).

Not at all. I honestly have no idea where you got that idea! Perhaps it's a perverted understanding of me (I'll explain this once more) looking at all the possibilities instead of just accepting my senses and logic are correct. Given you can't prove your senses and sense of logic are correct, it seems pretty silly to cite them as absolute truths.

Why must you separate philosophy and science? I already said I don't care about either - just establishing things logically for myself, since logic and my senses are the fundamental and only things in which I have faith. I'm not coming up with a scientific or a philosophical argument - my argument conforms only to logic. Whether that is an argument about what you would term rational or irrational, I care little - I'm trying to get at what is true and what is not.

Simple experimentation by multiple people all around the world, providing the same result, and viola it is either an accepted or unaccepted theory to Scientist X. Faith has nothing to do with it.

See your previous post where you proved by contradiction it does.

The experiments rely on logic which is something that you showed to be taken on faith. Similarly the observations may have been completely incorrect (but this is unlikely) and were at least inaccurate to a small degree. So they are likely, but can never be proved to be 100% truth. Oh look, we're back here again - we've established science isn't a truth because it's based on assumptions and approximations!

I'm done with this argument. It is an argument for the sake of argument. An individual who doesn't (or won't) understand the topic or the language used to explain the topic, cannot possibly debate it.

What is relevant is that you refuted a direct contradiction on your side of the argument with the comment "Um, no. Perhaps you aren't comprehending." You didn't explain how I wasn't comprehending how logic apparently failed in that instant...

 

[Fossil Records]

What is relevant is that you refuted a direct contradiction on your side of the argument with the comment "Um, no. Perhaps you aren't comprehending." You didn't explain how I wasn't comprehending how logic apparently failed in that instant...

Uh, yes, I did. Look above. I just had to decipher what you were talking about.

And it isn't with FAITH that I take science - it's with BELIEF. Again, look it up.

 

[kazahana]

Ahhhhh... therein lies the problem. I do refute #4. If I have sight, I believe in what I can see.

You can see sight? Wrong. You can't because it's an abstract concept, and since believing in something relies on being able to see it, you therefore can't believe in it even if you say it's a fundamental principle.

If I have senses, I believe in them as well. Naturally, if I see something I don't comprehend, I will utilize (just because it's my nature) science to explain it. Some people will use philosophy to explain it.

I'm not asking you to explain what you do with your senses, I'm asking why they're fundamental truths. A statement like "they just are" is groundless and since being scientific is your nature, surely illogic like that doesn't appeal to you. If something is true, it must have a reason.

I don't have faith in my senses, I trust my senses.

Yes you trust them. Without reason other than that's what you've always known since you were born.

I know that I think I see reality, and I know logic makes sense to me but I can't prove that I do see reality, or that the logic I think in applies to the universe, but I assume them both despite lack of proof. You say you trust your senses, but cannot produce proof that they are truths. That's faith.