proof, or faith? [Archive]

steppenwolf

Jul1-03, 04:54 AM

i had a very relavent discussion just the other day about fundamentalists and the merits of absolute faith. as an atheist and aspiring scientist i obviously have chosen the path or empirical and logical knowledge, i however have a certain envy and great respect for the absolute conviction that constitutes a religious belief. alot of people would call fundamentalists foolish and think themselves better off in their science, but 'better off' is a very relative term, maybe to us they are blinded by dogma and ignorant to truth but they feel they have found an absolute unquestionable truth, which gives them utter happiness and enlightenment.

my friend said to me 'i pity the highjackers of the september eleven planes, becasue they were so blinded by faith they did what they did, they had no choices in life they were just acting out orders'. i responded that i pitied the people who died that day, becasue they didn't chose to, and their families because they have to keep going, but the highjackers died the happiest people on earth, it's sad i know that such violence would make them happy but that moment was the culmination of everything they believed was worth fighting and dying for, they could already see (well were convinced they could see) the path to paradise.

Ivan Seeking

Jul1-03, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by maximus
this i wonder: does a religios viewpoint require proof? even if there is no contradictory proof, but only an absence of proof, is this enough to undo a belief?

in science ever term, idea, conclusion must be carefully scrutinized. but in theology, it seems, one does not require proof to make a conlusion about the universe. how is this? is this what you call 'faith'? and how far does it go? can an religious idea ever be shaken from a person, or can the idea or no religion ever be shaken from a non religios person? it seems the old saying that faith is the basis of human existance holds true, to some extent. it all depends on where you hold your faith. in the firmament of science? or in the beauty of theism?

or does faith have nothing to do with it? maybe the common grounds we share is nothing more than a search for truth. but still, we must have faith that we will find it.

Here's the reasoning that I use:

Nothing can be proven beyond all doubt.

One can never prove a negative.

->No belief (system) is or ultimately ever can be justified by logic.

->To believe or not to believe; each requires a leap of faith.

-->If any belief [including believing in nothing] is a matter of
faith, then I can never make a logical choice about beliefs.

--->Therefore I am free to choose my beliefs

--->I am compelled by experience to choose belief in God over
belief in nothing.

[EDIT] Of course there is always Pascal's Challenge:
[loosely quoted but I hope accurately represented]

If God exists and I live as if he doesn't, then I could spend eternity in a real bad place.

If God does not exist and I live as if he does, when I die, I'll never know the difference.

Therefore if we bet on God's existence we can't lose.

And finally we have the SETI argument for not disbelieving in GOD:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Zantra

Jul1-03, 03:53 PM

Proof is not required for faith:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

So you see the very definition of religion is anti-cience. Being one who does not believe in God, I don't fear the afterlife. If I go, I'll never know there is no god, because I'll just cease to exist. However it does make me more appreciate the life I've been given, and to take full advantage of it. There are many who will give up thier lives in service to a faith. I don't pity such people because it makes them happy, and that is the most important thing. However I have to follow the path that makes me the happiest, and that path is one of my own choosing. I believe I'm making my own life, for better or worse, and I'm in control of it.

At the same time without religion to guide our society, we may not have developed into the moralistic society we see before us today. Morality has it's roots in religion. So I personally see it as a tool to keep out society on the path of morality, and to give people reasons for existence where there were none.

Oh and science does not require faith, only curiosity, willpower, and patience.

Mentat

Jul1-03, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by maximus
this i wonder: does a religios viewpoint require proof? even if there is no contradictory proof, but only an absence of proof, is this enough to undo a belief?

Since I study the Bible, I know what the Christian viewpoint of "faith" is. It is found in the book of Hebrews (I forget the exact verse): "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" (Italics mine). Thus, if your religion is based on faith, then you are based on a reality that has not been beheld. Of course, belief in Science also requires some faith, since one can never really know that all of the observed "patterns" in the Universe, were not really coincidences every time. They must first believe this, and then they can follow the Scientific Method, for discovering new theories.

in science ever term, idea, conclusion must be carefully scrutinized.

Scrutinized, yes, but usually scrutinized by Inductive Logic, and thus not 100% accurate. Note: I am not denying the merit of Science. I am only showing the amount of faith that one must have in it, to use it - contrary to the popular belief that it is without any assumptions.

but in theology, it seems, one does not require proof to make a conlusion about the universe. how is this? is this what you call 'faith'?

Yes. Though I am not an expert in Theology or in Religion really, I know enough religious people to know that much of what they hold to is based entirely on faith.

and how far does it go?

That depends, both on the person, and on the Religion.

can an religious idea ever be shaken from a person, or can the idea or no religion ever be shaken from a non religios person?

Sure, both happen on a constant basis.

or does faith have nothing to do with it? maybe the common grounds we share is nothing more than a search for truth. but still, we must have faith that we will find it.

Well put.

Tiberius

Jul1-03, 04:10 PM

Lots of interesting stuff there maximus. Here's my take...

Originally posted by maximus
this i wonder: does a religios viewpoint require proof? even if there is no contradictory proof, but only an absence of proof, is this enough to undo a belief?

It kind of depends on what the "requirement" is for. You ask, does a religious view "require" proof. Normally a sentence might read...

To do X requires Y.

You are asking "is Y required" without stating the "to do X" part. So, it depends on what you're attempting to do with the religious claim.

If you're simply taking comfort in a religious concept, because you like it, then you might decide that, for you, you don't require proof. I personally require proof for what I believe because I believe that truth must be the first and foremost concern, with happiness coming after. Other folks, consciously or not, place happiness above truth.

On the other hand, if you're trying to use a religious belief as justification for the passage (or non passage) of a law or policy, in a society full of people of various different religions, then your religious view DOES require proof. This is because you have now moved beyond your personal preference, into things that affect others and to which they would be beholden too. Therefore, you must make your arguments in the court of public opinion, where proof will be asked for. Without such proof, individuals do not have the right to arbitrarily enforce their beliefs on others.

...in science every term, idea, conclusion must be carefully scrutinized. but in theology, it seems, one does not require proof to make a conlusion about the universe. how is this?

I can tell you exactly how this is...

Throughout much of history, and most notably in the philosophies of the ancient greeks, exemplified by the dialogues of plato and such, there was a belief that, through reason alone, truth could be determined. You'll note that, when reading the arguments of Socrates, that he starts with some observations from everyday life, and then takes the other characters on a long series of if/then propositions. He uses rationality and reason every step of the way, and arrives at a conclusion. Such conclusions were believed to have been "proven" through philosophical discourse. It's all very convincing to the reader, as every step seems to make sense. However, we know now that a lot of Socrates' conclusions about factual matters were absolutely wrong.

How can this be? Well, without getting into logic 101, it's basically because an argument can be 100% VALID and, at the same time, be 100% FALSE. In other words, if your premises are false, you can still construct a logical argument, with a conclusion that logically follows from those premises. There wouldn't be a problem with your logic - just your facts. But the ancient Greeks did not seem to make this distinction. They believed that you could PROVE things by philosophic argument alone. The result would be that Socrates could start out noting things like "fish swim in the ocean", and end up after a time with a conclusion like, "Men have immortal souls" (not a real example but you get my drift).

But, with the coming of the enlightenment, came a highly under-appreciated, yet incredibly significant realization. That was that "argument alone cannot PROVE anything". For proof, you MUST have observed facts (experimental observation). Logic then, may help you make sense of those facts, but that is what distinguishes science from mysticism. Both use philosophy, both use logical argument, both are internally consistent within themselves, but one has a laboratory and the other does not.

Most "philosophic" arguments of religion are based on the pre-enlightenment belief that logical argument and internal consistency alone can prove things. But in the modern world, the religions are recognized as having absolutely no valid proof because they have no data (which, being supernatural, is not even, in principle, possible to collect).

...is this what you call 'faith'? and how far does it go?

As far as wishful thinking and a good imagination takes it.

...can an religious idea ever be shaken from a person, or can the idea or no religion ever be shaken from a non religios person?

Depends on the person and their experiences. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, had no bad experiences with religion, yet rejected it in favor of naturalism and humanism, after many years of careful and open-minded deliberation and research.

...it seems the old saying that faith is the basis of human existance holds true, to some extent. it all depends on where you hold your faith. in the firmament of science? or in the beauty of theism?

I don't believe that it takes faith to believe that which the evidence supports. By definition, that would be the antithesis of faith. Not to say I believe there is NOT a god, because that belief would also take faith. I lack both beliefs. Agnostic? Perhaps. But also atheist, since atheism is technically the "lack of belief in a diety" - it doesn't necessarily include a belief of the opposite.

...or does faith have nothing to do with it? maybe the common grounds we share is nothing more than a search for truth. but still, we must have faith that we will find it.

Not necessarily. The search moves us ever closer, and that's what's important. Not necessarily that there's some imaginary finish line we must reach. The journey is its own reward.

megashawn

Jul1-03, 04:34 PM

Tiberius

Jul2-03, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
.

Profound.
:)

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Thus, if your religion is based on faith, then you are based on a reality that has not been beheld.And yet the reality which has not been beheld, is the reality of an "afterlife." In which case you can only speak of it in the most "plausible sense" (faith) because you haven't died and experienced it yet.

So in that respect the definition is right on! [;)]

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by maximus
this i wonder: does a religios viewpoint require proof? even if there is no contradictory proof, but only an absence of proof, is this enough to undo a belief? I think at the very least it requires plausibility (which is another word for faith), by which we come to establish -- through experience -- its validity. In other words it still has to hold some degree of revelancy, otherwise what you have is called "blind faith."

Zantra

Jul2-03, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think at the very least it requires plausibility (which is another word for faith), by which we come to establish -- through experience -- its validity. In other words it still has to hold some degree of revelancy, otherwise what you have is called "blind faith."

But isn't that actually what religiion is? blind faith? It's no different than saying that aliens are among us, and though it can't be proven or disporoven, it has validity...Alients are here, I can't prove that, but you can't disprove it so it must be true..

Explain that logic to me....

And how do dinosaurs fit into theology? are they simply discounted as fakes? Or did Noah take 2 brontosaurs on the boat too?

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
But isn't that actually what religiion is? blind faith? It's no different than saying that aliens are among us, and though it can't be proven or disporoven, it has validity...Alients are here, I can't prove that, but you can't disprove it so it must be true..All this tells me is that people aren't doing their homework.

Explain that logic to me...."And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

Does this sound like blind faith to you? If anything it speaks about creating a "solid foundation" by which people can believe. While its opposite is reiterated elsewhere by these words, "Many will come in my name to lead many astray." Indeed aren't these the very people you're talking about here, those who follow along "blindly?"

And how do dinosaurs fit into theology? are they simply discounted as fakes? Or did Noah take 2 brontosaurs on the boat too? And yet dinosaurs didn't exist at the time of Noah, suggesting they were irrelevant at the time, unless of course you wish to take the whole thing literally. While I don't doubt there was a person such as Noah, and there was a great flood and, that Noah built the ark and filled it with animals, which were perhaps the only animals known to Noah at the time, but beyond that I don't see what else can be gleened from it? Except the story does state that Noah had a personal relationship with God which, I believe is possible. Hmm ... now what does this (having a personal knowledge of God) have to do with blind faith?

Hurkyl

Jul2-03, 03:02 PM

Scrutinized, yes, but usually scrutinized by Inductive Logic, and thus not 100% accurate. Note: I am not denying the merit of Science. I am only showing the amount of faith that one must have in it, to use it - contrary to the popular belief that it is without any assumptions.

It's a sad state of affairs that the colored portion needs to be said. [:(]

Zantra

Jul2-03, 03:19 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]All this tells me is that people aren't doing their homework.[/Qoute]

Well the belief in god is a veiwpoint, not a fact (though some would disagree) and I'm just pointing out that I can no more prove God doesn't exist than you can prove that he does. However for my personal view, I choose to accept scientifically proven facts over theology. I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove that evolution does.

"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

Does this sound like blind faith to you? If anything it speaks about creating a "solid foundation" by which people can believe. While its opposite is reiterated elsewhere by these words, "Many will come in my name to lead many astray." Indeed aren't these the very people you're talking about right here, those who follow along "blindly?"

When I say "blind faith", I'm referring to man's acceptance of a higher power without physical proof of any kind. I believe in evolution, but I wasn't always this way. It was an acceptance of the valid facts that I slowly came to accept over time. It's much easier to hold GOD accountable when things happen you can't control, such as someone dying, or misfortune happening, then it is to simply accept that these things happened without a cosncious will or choice, they just occurred due to natural factors.

And yet dinosaurs didn't exist at the time of Noah, suggesting they were irrelevant at the time, unless of course you wish to take the whole thing literally. While I don't doubt there was a person such as Noah, and there was a great flood and, that Noah built the ark and filled it with animals, which were perhaps the only animals known to Noah at the time, but beyond that I don't see what else can be gleened from it? Except that the story does state Noah had a personal relationship with God which, I believe is possible. Hmm ... now what does this (i.e., having a personal knowledge of God) have to do with blind faith?

I may have been off on the timeframe. I was just curious how religion reconciles evolution with the old testament. Most people cannot reconcile classical christinity(ie king james bible, etc) with evolution, so I encounter more and more people who have developed thier own religious philosophy apart from the standard believes. Some claim belief in God while they break the 10 commandments as we talk(exaggeration, but you get my point.) There is a movement away from a strict religious outlook, and more of a modernistic approach nowadays...

But I digress. My point is this: How do you accept that God created man without denying science?

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
Well the belief in god is a veiwpoint, not a fact (though some would disagree) and I'm just pointing out that I can no more prove God doesn't exist than you can prove that he does. However for my personal view, I choose to accept scientifically proven facts over theology. I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove that evolution does.Well that doesn't get us anywhere now does it?

When I say "blind faith", I'm referring to man's acceptance of a higher power without physical proof of any kind. I believe in evolution, but I wasn't always this way. It was an acceptance of the valid facts that I slowly came to accept over time. It's much easier to hold GOD accountable when things happen you can't control, such as someone dying, or misfortune happening, then it is to simply accept that these things happened without a cosncious will or choice, they just occurred due to natural factors.And yet God does not necessarily manifest Himself in the physical sense. While as I already said, I think the proof is in the relevance it has in your own life. If there is no relevance, then what is there to believe?

I may have been off on the timeframe. I was just curious how religion reconciles evolution with the old testament. Most people cannot reconcile classical christinity(ie king james bible, etc) with evolution, so I encounter more and more people who have developed thier own religious philosophy apart from the standard believes. Some claim belief in God while they break the 10 commandments as we talk(exaggeration, but you get my point.) There is a movement away from a strict religious outlook, and more of a modernistic approach nowadays...And yet what is the truth, if it doesn't adapt as well?

But I digress. My point is this: How do you accept that God created man without denying science? And yet how long has the "formal discipline" of science been around? Meaning, why should we base everything upon that which has been around for a short while, as opposed to that which has been around for eons? While I think it's entirely unreasonable to cast aside the whole account of existence, just because we may have discovered a "better approach."

maximus

Jul2-03, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet God does not necessarily manifest Himself in the physical sense. While as I already said, I think the proof is in the relevance it has in your own life. If there is no relevance, then what is there to believe?

the truth. and every cold, impersonal fibre of it. [:D]

And yet how long has the "formal discipline" of science been around? Meaning, why should we base everything upon that which has been around for a short while, as opposed to that which has been around for eons? While I think it's entirely unreasonable to cast aside the whole account of existence, just because we may have discovered a "better approach."

this is irrelivant. religion has been around for eons simply due to the fact that science wasn't! so to expain phenomenons, people would result to supernatural.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by maximus
the truth. and every cold, impersonal fibre of it. [:D]Except that if we maintain the ground of our being by worshipping "material things," then that becomes idolatry, which becomes unacceptable because we're supposed to worship the "spirit of God," not some physical outcropping. This is why sun worship -- i.e., the closest "earthly" representaion of God -- is no longer accepted.

this is irrelivant. religion has been around for eons simply due to the fact that science wasn't! so to expain phenomenons, people would result to supernatural. How do "you" know that science is not some teeny tiny infinitesimal little glitch in the whole cosmic scheme of things? What makes you so sure? [;)]

maximus

Jul2-03, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that if we maintain the ground of our being by worshipping "material things," then that becomes idolatry, which becomes unacceptable because we're supposed to worship the "spirit of God," not some physical outcropping. This is why sun worship -- i.e., the closest "earthly" representaion of God -- is no longer accepted.

i don't understand where you heard me saying anything about worshiping anything. and what you said is meaningless to a non-religious person. god made the rule of not worshipping idols, but i obviously don't believe in a god.

How do "you" know that science is not some teeny tiny infinitesimal little glitch in the whole cosmic scheme of things? What makes you so sure? [;)]

i can't prove to you that it isn't, because you cannot prove a negaitve statement. but i'd ask you, why do you think it is?

Zantra

Jul2-03, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]Well that doesn't get us anywhere now does it?

Occam's Razor

And yet God does not necessarily manifest Himself in the physical sense. While as I already said, I think the proof is in the relevance it has in your own life. If there is no relevance, then what is there to believe?

Not quite sure I follow you. What does relevancy have to do with the truth? I think you're referring to what Mentat suggested earlier, as far as reality unbeheld? As far as what to believe, I believe truth and facts.

And yet what is the truth, if it doesn't adapt as well?

My point exactly. And if the truth eventually holds that God doesn't exist, will religion be able to adapt?

And yet how long has the "formal discipline" of science been around? Meaning, why should we base everything upon that which has been around for a short while, as opposed to that which has been around for eons? While I think it's entirely unreasonable to cast aside the whole account of existence, just because we may have discovered a "better approach."

First, "better" is a matter of opinion. Weather it's better or not, the truth still holds. Then given an option, would you choose the acceptance of a "better" philosophy over a truthful one? As to length of time. Then why would we choose to believe that there is life on other planets as opposed to believing that we are the center of the universe, and the only life within it? Why do we believe that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Just because it's an older belief, does not make it a wiser one.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i don't understand where you heard me saying anything about worshiping anything. and what you said is meaningless to a non-religious person. god made the rule of not worshipping idols, but i obviously don't believe in a god.What is worship, if not an act of faith? (i.e., acknowledging the ground of one's being).

i can't prove to you that it isn't, because you cannot prove a negaitve statement. but i'd ask you, why do you think it is? Actually I'm not really suggesting it is, but rather asking why you think science can be the only "one truth?"

maximus

Jul2-03, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is worship, if not an act of faith? (acknowledging the ground of one's being).

your definition of faith is odd. i acknowledge the ground of my being. but faith has nothing to do with it. i have faith in nothing. it must be proven to me.

Actually I'm not really suggesting it is, but rather asking why you think science can be the only "one truth?"

i understand that the question was more of a hypothetical one, but in answer to your question i believe scince is the only truth because there is no evidence to the contrary. and every piece of evidence that has been brought forth against science have not been out of the explanation of science.

Mentat

Jul2-03, 05:44 PM

Mentat

Jul2-03, 05:51 PM

People, this is getting to be a religious thread. I know that it doesn't address any specific religion, and it did start as purely Philosophical inquiry, but it's become a discussion of certain religious issues (such as the supposed (though truthfully non-existant) conflict between the Genesis account and Evolution), and that should be handled in the Religion section.

I know people are probably getting sick of me pestering about where a thread belongs, but I cannot (because of a personal agreement with someone) post on religious threads, and it is so much easier for me to avoid them, if they are always posted in the Religion Forum.

Zantra

Jul2-03, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, that is not a typical theist's logic. A typical theist believes that what their religion has actual basis. You think someone would believe something, if they thought they were doing so with absolutely no basis?

Well the basis for thier beliefs are all internalized. They're finding a reason to believe in God based on thier own personal desires, not on the external world around them.

A common misconception. Many people belive that to believe in God is to disbelieve Evolution. This is entirely false, but I can't go into the details, as this would quickly become a Religious debate, and I can't pursue Religious debate on the PFs. [/B]

I guess I'd better stop before I turn this into a religious discussion..

megashawn

Jul2-03, 05:58 PM

And yet how long has the "formal discipline" of science been around? Meaning, why should we base everything upon that which has been around for a short while, as opposed to that which has been around for eons?

Hmm. Lets see. Maybe because in the short time that "formal discipline" has been around, we've advanced quite a substatianal amount. Alot of us live longer, healthier and happier lives due to science. Most places that are called "3rd World" lack science, and still wait on some superstition to delever them to salvation. In fact, your able to ask us questions like "Why should we believe in science since its only been around a few hundred or so years?" due to science.

And as far as to that which has been around eons? I think most estimates of a christian timeframe say god created the universe like 15-20,000 years ago. Science predicts a much, much older time frame. It can tell us about things millions of years ago, like dinosaurs, something every religion seems to lack.

Like I tried to say earlier, my quote pretty much says it all.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
Occam's RazorOkay, so I'm not familiar with Occam's Razor. Can you explain it to me?

Not quite sure I follow you. What does relevancy have to do with the truth? I think you're referring to what Mentat suggested earlier, as far as reality unbeheld? As far as what to believe, I believe truth and facts.And yet the only truth we can really believe is the truth of our own circumstances. And yes to some people that includes a God, real, imagined or otherwise.

My point exactly. And if the truth eventually holds that God doesn't exist, will religion be able to adapt?I believe that the sun in our solar system may eventually "wink out." So? ...

First, "better" is a matter of opinion. Weather it's better or not, the truth still holds. Then given an option, would you choose the acceptance of a "better" philosophy over a truthful one? As to length of time.Well science obviously thinks it has a better approach.

Then why would we choose to believe that there is life on other planets as opposed to believing that we are the center of the universe, and the only life within it? Why do we believe that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Just because it's an older belief, does not make it a wiser one. Would you deny that your great great grandparents ever existed? They may be dead now, and have no relevence to your own "personal situation" now, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist or, had relevancy back then. Besides you are speaking of the difference between what has been proven and what has not (scientifically). In which case you cannot say just because an idea no longer "appears useful," that it never held any relevancy or, held any truth.

maximus

Jul2-03, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Okay, so I'm not familiar with Occam's Razor. Can you explain it to me?

basically: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

or:

the simplies answer is often the best one.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
Hmm. Lets see. Maybe because in the short time that "formal discipline" has been around, we've advanced quite a substatianal amount. Alot of us live longer, healthier and happier lives due to science. Most places that are called "3rd World" lack science, and still wait on some superstition to delever them to salvation. In fact, your able to ask us questions like "Why should we believe in science since its only been around a few hundred or so years?" due to science.

And as far as to that which has been around eons? I think most estimates of a christian timeframe say god created the universe like 15-20,000 years ago. Science predicts a much, much older time frame. It can tell us about things millions of years ago, like dinosaurs, something every religion seems to lack.

Like I tried to say earlier, my quote pretty much says it all. Times change. People change. And God should change too but, "not in essence."

megashawn

Jul2-03, 06:20 PM

dont you hate it when you run out of good confusing stuff to say?

In other words, Huh?

edit:

Occamms Razor is "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred." There are also some other pretty smart things he said.

Check out your favorite search engine for more info.

maximus

Jul2-03, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
People, this is getting to be a religious thread. I know that it doesn't address any specific religion, and it did start as purely Philosophical inquiry, but it's become a discussion of certain religious issues (such as the supposed (though truthfully non-existant) conflict between the Genesis account and Evolution), and that should be handled in the Religion section.

I know people are probably getting sick of me pestering about where a thread belongs, but I cannot (because of a personal agreement with someone) post on religious threads, and it is so much easier for me to avoid them, if they are always posted in the Religion Forum.

perhaps it should be moved then. sorry if i posted in the wrong place.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
dont you hate it when you run out of good confusing stuff to say?

In other words, Huh? I don't know, maybe it isn't neccessary to rely on God the way we used to, but it still doesn't change the fact that He exists or not. And on another note, how do we know that God isn't speaking to us through Science? And, that maybe the next big scientific discovery will be to discover that He does? [;)]

megashawn

Jul2-03, 06:41 PM

Maybe so. But what if he is saying things the church don't wanna hear.

I mean, lets think about this. What if god is speaking to us through science. God has told us how to recreate ourselves, and modify ourselves. He's also let us in on computing, and seems to be telling us better, faster ways to do this. Infact, god seems to be using science to motivate us to a society independant on supernatural things.

Hey, I'll accept that maybe behind the quantum randmoness is a god of some sort. Maybe I'll like what he has to say, maybe not. How about you?

Btw, I edited the post you responded to adding what occams razor was, sorry, was hoping to beat you to it.

Zantra

Jul2-03, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Times change. People change. And God should change too but, "not in essence."

And I think that is exactly what is happening. People eventually stop believing in Santa Clause, but he still exists in our minds to serve a purpose. Granted the subject of God is much more complexed than Santa Clause, but the concept of GOD as an entity that will never fade from our society is germane. I believe that even if society were to wholly accept that God did not exist in the face of irrefutable evidence, that people would still pray to him. In a sense, the "name" of God, allah, or a higher being carries more meaning than the actually figure. It's like Elvis making more money dead than when he was a alive. The legend eventually exceeded the person himself.

Weather he exists or not, it's so socially ingrained in us to believe in him, that the "essence" of God will probably never cease.

Zantra

Jul2-03, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by maximus
perhaps it should be moved then. sorry if i posted in the wrong place.

Actually it's my fault for going off on this religious tangent..

Muh bad[;)]

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
dont you hate it when you run out of good confusing stuff to say?

In other words, Huh?What are you trying to confuse me? [;)]

edit:

Occamms Razor is "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred." There are also some other pretty smart things he said.

Check out your favorite search engine for more info. In other words it was perfectly acceptable to believe the earth was flat "in its time," as opposed to speculation by others who believed it was round?

maximus

Jul2-03, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words it was perfectly acceptable to believe the earth was flat "in its time," as opposed to speculation by others who believed it was round?

i see your logic here, but you are missing the point. they (those who believe the earth was flat) failed to take in all the evidence. evidence such as a ship's sail being the last thing to disappear over the horizon.

read the previous definition again and you'll see he said: "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal , the simpler one is to be preferred"

megashawn

Jul2-03, 08:07 PM

No, that comment was made due to the way you sidestepped my entire arguement and said

"Times change. People change. And God should change too but, "not in essence."

And this is your response to my saying the scientific ways have increased life beyond that which the bible ever predicted. Sure we still have problems, but atleast now, at this point in time there is actually someone (a whole lot of someones actually) who are trying to do something about it.

Lets try this again, shall we?

And yet how long has the "formal discipline" of science been around?

Not very long at all, in comparison to how long humans have been around.

Meaning, why should we base everything upon that which has been around for a short while, as opposed to that which has been around for eons?

Because that which has been around for a short while has done more for humanity in that "short while" then any mythological belief that has been around for eons. (how long is an eon anyhow?)

While I think it's entirely unreasonable to cast aside the whole account of existence, just because we may have discovered a "better approach."

Well, if this "better approach" has improved so much in general life, refridgerators, air conditioners, heat, tv, computer, car, train, plain, jets, rockets, etc, What makes you think it doesn't have any improvement to do on the theorys of existance?

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by maximus
i see your logic here, but you are missing the point. they (those who believe the earth was flat) failed to take in all the evidence. evidence such as a ship's sail being the last thing to disappear over the horizon.

read the previous definition again and you'll see he said: "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal , the simpler one is to be preferred" Of course the idea that the earth was round had yet to be fully developed, in which case it could not have been considered the simpler of the two ideas. Meaning the old idea had to be challenged first and ultimately proven wrong.

Now who's to say science isn't in a similar predicament with God? There may indeed be a very simple way of proving this (outside of one's own personal experience that is) but, until that time comes, does that mean it's wrong to believe as such? Or, even speculate on the matter?

Zantra

Jul2-03, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words it was perfectly acceptable to believe the earth was flat "in its time," as opposed to speculation by others who believed it was round?

No that wasn't the reason I mentioned Occamm's Razor. Point being, all things being equal, what seems to be the more plausible explanation, theology or evolution?

And the "flat earth" comparison was to illustrate the point that the oldest beliefs aren't necessarily the correct ones. Much like a child grows into an adult and gains experience, knowledge and understanding, so does humanity evolve on a much grander scale. So you're saying just because it's newer, it can't be useful? Well then then by all means toss out that microwave, 50 inch TV, radio, computer, and all other signs of modernism, because they definitely can't be as useful as a ball of yarn and some sheep.

People are always resistance to change. They fear the unknown.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
And I think that is exactly what is happening. People eventually stop believing in Santa Clause, but he still exists in our minds to serve a purpose. Granted the subject of God is much more complexed than Santa Clause, but the concept of GOD as an entity that will never fade from our society is germane. I believe that even if society were to wholly accept that God did not exist in the face of irrefutable evidence, that people would still pray to him. In a sense, the "name" of God, allah, or a higher being carries more meaning than the actually figure. It's like Elvis making more money dead than when he was a alive. The legend eventually exceeded the person himself.

Weather he exists or not, it's so socially ingrained in us to believe in him, that the "essence" of God will probably never cease. If there is the reality called God, then it must be contingent upon the fact that there is an afterlife. This is the part which isn't going to change, and it's the part which I mean by the "essence of God."

Zantra

Jul2-03, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If there is the reality called God, then it must be contingent upon the fact that there is an afterlife. This is the part which isn't going to change, and it's the part which I mean by the "essence of God."

Though I do not personally believe in God, I believe in the institution of religion and the moral values that it upholds. I see religion as a base guideline for society to treat each other and how to act. Without it we might very well have descended into anarchy.

Proving the afterlife and God almost becomes paradoxical in nature. If there is a God, eventually we'll be able to look beyond death and see that. But if there is no afterlife, we may never be able to prove that, because if you cease to exist, then you can't prove that, because it would basically just be nothingess. And to religion, the simple lack of seeing an afterlife is not proof it doesn't exist. It's all self-reinforcing.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
Because that which has been around for a short while has done more for humanity in that "short while" then any mythological belief that has been around for eons. (how long is an eon anyhow?) And yet it's possible to get "too comfortable" in our complacency don't you think? An eon is anywhere from an immeasurably long period of time, to a period of one billion years (used in geology).

Well, if this "better approach" has improved so much in general life, refridgerators, air conditioners, heat, tv, computer, car, train, plain, jets, rockets, etc, What makes you think it doesn't have any improvement to do on the theorys of existance? [/B]How much of an improvement is it though? And how long will it last? before we find the need to get back to "the essence" of who we are? ... i.e., what some people term as "getting back to the basics."

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
No that wasn't the reason I mentioned Occamm's Razor. Point being, all things being equal, what seems to be the more plausible explanation, theology or evolution?

And the "flat earth" comparison was to illustrate the point that the oldest beliefs aren't necessarily the correct ones.Oh, did you bring this one up (about the earth being flat), I didn't catch that I don't think?

Much like a child grows into an adult and gains experience, knowledge and understanding, so does humanity evolve on a much grander scale. So you're saying just because it's newer, it can't be useful? Well then then by all means toss out that microwave, 50 inch TV, radio, computer, and all other signs of modernism, because they definitely can't be as useful as a ball of yarn and some sheep.And yet how many times in one's lifetime does one really need to buy a new TV set? Indeed, there may come a time when all of this junk gets tossed! [;)]

People are always resistance to change. They fear the unknown. And yet quite often the "old ways" are merely shrugged off due to the impetuousness of youth. Which can be unfortunate, once you have grown up and are able to look back.

Iacchus32

Jul2-03, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
Proving the afterlife and God almost becomes paradoxical in nature. If there is a God, eventually we'll be able to look beyond death and see that. But if there is no afterlife, we may never be able to prove that, because if you cease to exist, then you can't prove that, because it would basically just be nothingess. And to religion, the simple lack of seeing an afterlife is not proof it doesn't exist. It's all self-reinforcing. And yet the idea of it has been ascertained, suggesting that we have the means by which to discuss its plausibility anyway, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Zantra

Jul2-03, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
[B]Oh, did you bring this one up, I didn't catch that I don't think?

And yet how many times in one's lifetime does one really need to buy a new TV set? Indeed, there may come a time when all of this junk gets tossed! [;)]

Touche!

And yet quite often the "old ways" are merely shrugged off due to the impetuousness of youth. Which can be unfortunate, once you have grown up and are able to look back.

Personally I'm aiming for an impetuous retirement as well as youth[;)]

I don't see my views changing that much as time goes on, but then I can't predict the future either (unless determinsm holds true). However, athieism does have it's advantages. A lot of religious people will make all these mistakes and then not worry about them, because they will be forgiven in the afterlife. Especially Catholics. They seem to think they can rape, pillage, and plunder and just say "oops" on thier deathbed and be forgiven. (Yes I'm overstating that, but still..). Anyhow, not believing in the afterlife definitely makes one more appreciate the current phase of life, and realize that you only get one chance to get it right[;)]

Iacchus32

Jul3-03, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Zantra
Anyhow, not believing in the afterlife definitely makes one more appreciate the current phase of life, and realize that you only get one chance to get it right[;)] But why even bother to worry about it if there were no repercussions, good or bad? Which to me is another way of saying we have no need for morals. In fact I see a lot of people -- including many impetuous young people -- who behave this way.

maximus

Jul3-03, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But why even bother to worry about it if there were no repercussions, good or bad? Which to me is another way of saying we have no need for morals. In fact I see a lot of people -- including many impetuous young people -- who behave this way.

i have responded to these sentements many times, and every time it is the same. morals are superficial (IMO). beyond humans and and human societies, they do not exist. does the lion feel sorry for the gazelle? no. now, don't get me wrong, morals are completly neccassary for human coexistance to take place. but in the cosmic picture, they are meaninless.

Zantra

Jul3-03, 06:45 PM

Iacchus32

Jul4-03, 07:57 AM

And yet, is there truly a standard by which all things are judged? If so, then where does it come from? Wouldn't that also imply it was inherent with who we are, rather than something which is applied "externally?" (although this may be a means by which to introduce it initially). Which is to say, this is something which always has and always will be?

At the very least though, it seems like a process by which we have to reconcile ourselves to these things "from within" (in order for them to have any meaning).

Iacchus32

Jul4-03, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by maximus
i have responded to these sentements many times, and every time it is the same. morals are superficial (IMO). beyond humans and and human societies, they do not exist. does the lion feel sorry for the gazelle? no. now, don't get me wrong, morals are completly neccassary for human coexistance to take place. but in the cosmic picture, they are meaninless. If this is so, then why does it only exist with humans? Why are we so unique? Could it be that this is the "crowning achievement" of evolution? Or, perhaps something else? [;)]

Would you say that morals result from a "higher state of being?" Or, a lower state of being?

Zantra

Jul4-03, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is so, then why does it only exist with humans? Why are we so unique? Could it be that this is the "crowning achievement" of evolution? Or, perhaps something else? [;)]

Would you say that morals result from a "higher state of being?" Or, a lower state of being?

Morals are a sign of higher reasoning. Empapthy is something that lower life forms are not capable of. I wouldn't say we are the "crowning achievement", because who knows how me might evolve in another millenia? But things such as empathy and morals are definitely attributed to higher reasoning. Are you pledging otherwise ?

Iacchus32

Jul4-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
Morals are a sign of higher reasoning. Empapthy is something that lower life forms are not capable of. I wouldn't say we are the "crowning achievement", because who knows how me might evolve in another millenia? But things such as empathy and morals are definitely attributed to higher reasoning. Are you pledging otherwise ? No, I'm just questioning what gives us the capacity to be moral. Is it merely by-product of the evolutionary process or, is there a bit more to it than that? [;)]

Zero

Jul4-03, 06:13 PM

Let's remember that 'lower' animals also display altruism. It isn't unique to humans, although it tends to exist predominantly in mammals, and moreso the more those mammals exist in 'societies'(pack animals, for instance). It isn't a function of intellect or 'being advanced', it is a function of group interaction.

MasterBlaster

Jul4-03, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Let's remember that 'lower' animals also display altruism. It isn't unique to humans, although it tends to exist predominantly in mammals, and moreso the more those mammals exist in 'societies'(pack animals, for instance). It isn't a function of intellect or 'being advanced', it is a function of group interaction.

Absolutely no.

No animals display altruism. There is not a shred of evidence to the claim that altruism has ever been exacted.

No organism will ever committ altruism. This is a scientific fact. There are always gains to any action.

Hurkyl

Jul4-03, 09:06 PM

The gains are for the pack, possibly at the detriment of the individual, which makes it altruism by definition.

Zero

Jul4-03, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Absolutely no.

No animals display altruism. There is not a shred of evidence to the claim that altruism has ever been exacted.

No organism will ever committ altruism. This is a scientific fact. There are always gains to any action. Are you saying that 'altruism' is a word which describes nothing? Cracker...

Zantra

Jul5-03, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just questioning what gives us the capacity to be moral. Is it merely by-product of the evolutionary process or, is there a bit more to it than that? [;)]

So again steering this into the insuation of God. Morals are something that we, as a society created. It was done to benefit all manking with the intention of benefiting each individual.

I think I went down the wrong path here. morals are a bad example, and too open to specualation. I'm talking higher reasoning in general. Curiousity, learning, discovery. Those are all humnistic traits. And man, we've gotten so far off track I can't remember the original debate. Anyhow, the bottom line is that though lower life forms may show a degree of altruism, it's not as advanced as humans. And it's more of a base instinct of self-preservation. It's why they go in groups. Self-preservation that also benefits the whole pack. It's selfishness masked with good intent, but ultimately not truly altruistic.

metacristi

Jul5-03, 12:26 PM

maximus

From the standpoint given by logic there is a golden rule which every would be rational person should respect:never believe something without a rational reason.The majority of people apply (unconsciously in many cases) this dicton when dealing with day by day activities but not in the case of God where they resort solely on faith.Some even claim that we cannot extend rationality in God's case but I don't think they're right,a rational belief can still be defended as I will argue further.

Every unbiased person will recognize that we do not have today sufficient objective (scientfic) knowledge to settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence either way:indeed naturalism is still only a conjecture.That's why it suffices [in order to base a rational,stricly personal belief,without making positive claims in exterior] some evidence for which 'God hypothesis' is on equal foot with actual scientific knowledge.There is plenty of such evidence for the moment,practically in all ontological problems.

For example when applied at the problem of how the Universe appeared the 'personal God hypothesis' (God defined merely as the creator of the universe) is in such a position.Indeed we cannot make the difference between the two hypotheses (naturalism vs God) in a sound manner,for the moment at least.If we add here the fact that there is no (natural) good reason for which the laws of nature should remain basically unchanged for huge periods of time...

As a conclusion there is plenty of evidence,on equal foot with scientific hypotheses,that can be interpreted,subjectively,as poiting out toward the existence of a creator.The claim of some people that God is never a solution does not stand a simple logical scrutiny:from the fact that naturalism has always worked so far does not follow that this will always be the case.Indeed tradition is never a proof or a sufficient reason.

We do not have the right to use God hypothesis in our scientific theories if it is not fruitful (making also potentially falsifiable predictions) indeed,still the evidence I've talked about above is enough to base a rational belief.For the moment there is no sufficient objective reason which to compel all would be rational person to disbelieve or to be skeptical,naturalism is still a simple conjecture...

maximus

Jul5-03, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is so, then why does it only exist with humans? Why are we so unique? Could it be that this is the "crowning achievement" of evolution? Or, perhaps something else? [;)]

evolution has no goal, so it can have no achievement. we have evolved to have morals so that we may succesfully live in societies together. without some moral standards, this would be impossible.

Would you say that morals result from a "higher state of being?" Or, a lower state of being?

humans are no more evolved than fish. we are no more of a higher state of being than a cockroach. the develoment of morals, has, however, led us to be highly successful as a group society.

maximus

Jul5-03, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just questioning what gives us the capacity to be moral. Is it merely by-product of the evolutionary process or, is there a bit more to it than that? [;)]

i believe it is just as you said, the "byproduct" of an evolutionary process. we strive to survive, and we survived best together. to live together without killing each other, we needed morals.

and evolution is constantly weeding out morals that have gone out of control. heroes and martrys are people with a sense of morals that have lead to their death, and thus, an evolutionary cancel of that trait. (see my thread heroes die).

radagast

Jul7-03, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by metacristi
maximus

From the standpoint given by logic there is a golden rule which every would be rational person should respect:never believe something without a rational reason.The majority of people apply (unconsciously in many cases) this dicton when dealing with day by day activities but not in the case of God where they resort solely on faith.Some even claim that we cannot extend rationality in God's case but I don't think they're right,a rational belief can still be defended as I will argue further.

People accept things as true based on one (or a combination) of three
sources.

Authority, Direct observation, or the logic of ones own reasoning.

Each of these has it's own potential flaws and pitfalls.

Belief in a god is certainly firmly rooted in the authority camp.

Those of us who have no belief in God have a hard time realizing that the experiences of believers gives them a much difference value system when it comes to (certain) authority sources. To them this belief is not only rational, but not believing wouldn't be.

There are other rational reasons why people believe in (a) god(s). Before I get into those directly, it's important to define rational here. I am not speaking of an abstact, informal logic type argument, defendable using traditional rules of logic, but that they percieve (usually subconsciously) it better for them to accept this as true, than not.

For many, the open, or even simply conscious, rejection of a particular set of god beliefs would constitute a threat to them on a number of levels: socially both in family and in community, potentially financially, and in some places to their very life. This doesn't even address the challenge this change in belief would pose to the ego (major issues are extremely difficult for any individual to admit being wrong about). While I may not agree with their views, I can see why it would be a number of rational reasons for them to remain in their beliefs.

It's easy to sit in judgement of others, assuming we would have come to different conclusions, having grown up with the same experience base.

Every unbiased person...
Personally, I don't think there is such.

We do not have the right to use God hypothesis in our scientific theories if it is not fruitful (making also potentially falsifiable predictions)...

Since any hypothesis which contains no falsifiable predictions is inherently outside the domain of science, I would agree with the above.

Just as psycological aspects of theistic belief provide an ego support (i.e. I'm better than they are because I follow Gods law), so does the ego trap of believeing being rational makes one better than those we see as 'not rational'. Years of reading alt.atheism.moderated has shown me that rational, logical atheists can be just as illogical, irrational, and just plain pig headed when it suits their ego, their world view, or just their desire to win a simple argument.

Royce

Jul7-03, 09:55 AM

Glen, while what you say maybe true in many cases, there are those of us believers that come to our beliefs through years of observation, study and rational thought that leads us to believe in God the Creator.
To say that "Belief is firmly rooted it the authority camp." is an over simplification. There are many reasons to belive in God. Probably as many reasons to believe as not to believe. We each have our own personal reasons for believing or not believing. To place all those reasons into a few simple catagories is not valid or productive.

Mentat

Jul7-03, 10:13 AM

Let me make this point absolutely clear (and then please read my explanation): Belief in God is, by it's very nature, logical. Allow me to explain. Logic (at least Deductive logic) is the use of two propositions to reach the "logical" third proposition (this is oversimplification, but it will suffice for now). However, Deductive Logic still works when some (or all) of the propositions are Scientifically false. For example: If I say "All people exist, all pigs exist, therefore all people are pigs", I have used Deductive Logic, but I have not arrived at a (scientifically) true conclusion.

So, even if it's not true - that God (or whatever deity you believe in) exists - it is still possible to arrive at that conclusion logically.

radagast

Jul7-03, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Glenn, while what you say maybe true in many cases, there are those of us believers that come to our beliefs through years of observation, study and rational thought that leads us to believe in God the Creator.
To say that "Belief is firmly rooted it the authority camp." is an over simplification. There are many reasons to belive in God. Probably as many reasons to believe as not to believe. We each have our own personal reasons for believing or not believing. To place all those reasons into a few simple catagories is not valid or productive.

Quite true, I didn't mean to imply that Belief was solely rooted in the authority camp. If it came across as such, my apologies.

I agree that many will find numerous reasons to believe (or not), but I do stand by my statement (an adaptation of one made by Maimoiniedes(sp?)), that rationally held beliefs fail into one (or more) of the following three categories. Accepted due to authority, experience, or deductive logic.

Almost nothing in the real world would fall into only one of those categories, but some originate, predominately, from one of them.

Originally posted by Mentat
Let me make this point absolutely clear (and then please read my explanation): Belief in God is, by it's very nature, logical. Allow me to explain. Logic (at least Deductive logic) is the use of two propositions to reach the "logical" third proposition (this is oversimplification, but it will suffice for now). However, Deductive Logic still works when some (or all) of the propositions are Scientifically false. For example: If I say "All people exist, all pigs exist, therefore all people are pigs", I have used Deductive Logic, but I have not arrived at a (scientifically) true conclusion.

While you may believe you have used deductive logic, you have also made an error in logic - specifically an equivalence fallacy, i.e. just because people and pigs have one characteristic in common doesn't make people and pigs the same. Both your premises were true, it was your logic that was in error.

That said, you are quite true in that a fallacious premise, with proper logic will lead to an erroneous conclusion. I have no idea if semantics would classify the conclusions as logical, though.

megashawn

Jul7-03, 11:53 AM

Well, it seems to me that if there was some sort of god, we'd have no need for the many religous texts floating around.

Infact, since god designed us, we'd have all the information hard written within us. There would not be any arguements over whose religion was true, cause we'd all know.

But this is not the case. I mean, think about a video game. We have a 3d enviroment, characters, AI, etc. The AI is programmed with the information it needs to get things done. This of course, is a weak example, but if a programmer, who is human, has enough sense to create an artificial being that is smart enough to do what it is supposed to do, why can't a god, which is supposed to be all powerfull, knowledgable, etc.

Really, if you think about it, the mere fact that every single person on earth doesn't agree on religous matters, is more then enough reason to believe none of them got it right.

And also the fact that there is no recorded proof of any god, aside from that gods own religous text. With our digital technology, it would be quite easy for a god to come to earth, do a tele-conference and get us all up to date.

This doesn't happen.

I mean, how many years into the future is the arguement going to go? I vote go with that which is most productive for mankind. Scientific pursuits far more outweigh any religous matter in this respect.

And as far as having a reason to life. Perhaps our reason is to find a reason. Maybe we have to make a reason. Maybe there is a reason in each of us to spend our short lives worshipping a being we've never met, with which we hope to spend the rest of eternity with.

Or maybe, just maybe, were a mere freak of nature and there is no damn good reason for us to be here. Perhaps then, I'd say it is our goal, as the most advanced species we know of, to ensure life never fades.

radagast

Jul7-03, 12:15 PM

Megashawn,
While you pose some interesting points, you seem to use religion and religious almost synonymously with theism. This is not the case for certain religions (depending on you definition of religion).

megashawn

Jul7-03, 03:54 PM

Thanks. More times then not I am referring to christian type beliefs. I usually specify if I'm talking of something else. I'm not a word scientist by no means, so if you guys think I'm sticking the wrong word in somewhere, lemme know.

Just for clarity, what is the difference between religion and theism?

maximus

Jul7-03, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
Just for clarity, what is the difference between religion and theism?

a theist may believe in a supreme being but not follow the doctrines of a specific religon. if you are religios, you are by definition a theist, but if you are a theist you are not neccesserily religious.

Royce

Jul8-03, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by megashawn
Really, if you think about it, the mere fact that every single person on earth doesn't agree on religous matters, is more then enough reason to believe none of them got it right.

Or, possibly, all of them got some of it right. In my study of religions I have found a commonality in all religions that a first surprised me. The teachings of Jesus and Buddha are very similar and often identical.
Maybe that is one of our reasons for being here. To come to know God.
Until we do that we are all just guessing. We have some of the words. Others have other words and still others have some of the music. Together we all may some day know all the word and all the music.

Mentat

Jul8-03, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by radagast
While you may believe you have used deductive logic, you have also made an error in logic - specifically an equivalence fallacy, i.e. just because people and pigs have one characteristic in common doesn't make people and pigs the same. Both your premises were true, it was your logic that was in error.

Well, the example was off the top of my head, but I respectfully acknowledge your correction.

That said, you are quite true in that a fallacious premise, with proper logic will lead to an erroneous conclusion. I have no idea if semantics would classify the conclusions as logical, though.

Well, now that's another subject altogether. Semantics must play a part, in that - for example - homonymns (sp?) shouldn't be confused in logical deduction (as Dissident Dan showed in a recent thread). Also, semantics should play a role in the deciding of whether something is even possible in principle. Possibility in principle is what people usually call "possible in theory" (though I highly disapprove of this common usage of the word "theory"), but some things are, by their very definitions, impossible even in principle.

For example, it is impossible even in principle for a finite thing to become infinite. It simply cannot happen, and this fact is directly related to the definitions of the terms. You see, putting together the fact that "infinite" means "having no end", and that "finite" means "having a defined end", logically you arrive at "it would take an forever to 'expand' (increase in size) from having an end to having no end at all".

Again, this example is just off the top of my head, but I'm a little more confident about this one [t)].

radagast

Jul8-03, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
Really, if you think about it, the mere fact that every single person on earth doesn't agree on religous matters, is more then enough reason to believe none of them got it right.

The same way that since every single person on earth doesn't agree on evolutionary matters, none of them are right?

Or perhaps that every single person on earth doesn't agree that the earth is not flat...

What you say falls into the category of at least two argument fallacies.

Your arguments also tend to incorperate a lot of unstated assumptions. Your statements about god(s) incorporating information we are (currently) to believe, contravenes all the ideas behind faith.

Originally posted by Royce
The teachings of Jesus and Buddha are very similar and often identical.

I agree with you there. Even more surprising when you realise that Christianity arose from christ's teachings, which is theistic, and Buddhism from Gautama, which is non-theistic.

My favorite logical impossibility is the existence of a sperical cube. [:)]

Regards,

megashawn

Jul8-03, 03:42 PM

The same way that since every single person on earth doesn't agree on evolutionary matters, none of them are right?

No. This is not the same. There is not some all knowing everything about evolution being with which we pray to and seek guidance.

With religion, if there truly was some all powerfull being, whom can do anything he wishes, then there is no good reason why there are so many religions that do not agree or compliment one another.

In fact, you cannot provide that good reason, but merely attempt to sidestep by using that same logic on evolutionary matters.

The difference is, evolution is real, it happens, and we know it. We might not be able to study it to a great deal, but it is apparent and is measurable. It does not play hide and seek and there is not 99999999999999 different versions of it. Nobody pretends to be all knowing about evolution. Those that do are just as foolish as those who don't believe it happens.

And honestly, if there is a person left on earth who is unsure of the shape of the earth, then I pity that fool.

There are similar messages, of course. Why some may ask? Well, cos the messages are common sense. One of my favorite lines from Jesus is "Everything in moderation". Its common sense. Any fool knows this. Thou Shalt not Kill. Again, common sense. If you kill everyone, there is more work for you to do. Of course Budda and Plato and Jesus are gonna have similar remarks, as any intelligent person would come to these conclusions.

And If anything, I've always complimented religions ability to control the masses and inflict a good standard of behavior. I just feel it is now time to move on from the fairy tales and adopt these common sense ways of living into ourself. To for once, credit oneself with doing something good, instead of a god. Or, when one does something wrong, to actually take responsibility for it, and make good with the person you wronged. NOT simply ask god to forgive you and be done with it.

FZ+

Jul8-03, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by radagast
The same way that since every single person on earth doesn't agree on evolutionary matters, none of them are right?

Or perhaps that every single person on earth doesn't agree that the earth is not flat...
The difference here is threefold, IMHO.

First, the point of God is it's existence as an absolute faith. While evolutionary is generally a matter of scientific debate, with the acceptance of a dynamic position (by one side, at least), each religion proposes the unfalsifiable claim that they, and they alone present the monopoly on the Truth. As a general rule, it is unlikely that anyone in particular can establish a complete truth from first instance, and the proposal that it is "obvious" from a spiritual view of the existence of each particular god, with the exclusion of others, undermines any confidence in absolute statements as to god. With the majority of theistic statements absolute in nature, this effectively damages their proposals in the present form.

Secondly, there is the nature of the evidence involved. While evolution is based generally on physical evidence, and creationism largely not, most religions are based on faith based "evidence". In this case, the quality of evidence on all hands are the same, and this quality is intricately linked to the validity of each specific god. Eg. statements such as X doesn't exist because my god says so is based on the existence of the god in the first place. As there can be no real judgement between all the proposals, it appears likely that the quality of all is currently suspect.

Thirdly, the argument ties in when each follower of a particular philosophy maintains that it is both natural, and logical to worship a specific god. The existence of differing viewpoints clearly disputes this, and so counters the proposal of a single, "natural" god/group of gods, and statements to the effect of "the proof is all around you".

Royce

Jul8-03, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

First, the point of God is it's existence as an absolute faith.
Not always. You over generalize. As Glen said theism is not the same as Religion. While I agree that most organized religions work that way, even between different denominations of the same religion, not all theist, those who believe in a God creator, claim to know the one Truth and all other truths and /or Gods are false. Buddhism does not even address the existence of a God but tells us how to live our lifes.

Secondly, there is the nature of the evidence involved. While evolution is based generally on physical evidence, and creationism largely not, most religions are based on faith based "evidence".

Is the existence of the universe not enough physical evidence? Before you pooh pooh this I ask you is it any more unreasonable that the anthromorphic principle explaining why the universe is the way it is? Belief in a creator or a God can be just as logical and reasonable as the belief in the Big Bang or any other "theory" with little or no direct evidence to support it. Just because it is "Science" does not make any more reasonable unless it is firmly based on observation and experiment that is repeatable and varifiable by others.

While evolution has observations and assumptions of what these observations mean and how they are interconnected, evolution makes no predictions that can be varified directly nor can experiments be preformed.

I don't deny that evolution is probably valid at least in part but it is not the only possible explanation. IMO It does not really yet qualify to be called a scientific theory but should be a hypothesis with some evidence to support it.

radagast

Jul8-03, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
The difference here is threefold, IMHO.

First, the point of God is it's existence as an absolute faith. While evolutionary is generally a matter of scientific debate, with the acceptance of a dynamic position (by one side, at least...

My point was one-fold, since you missed or ignored it I'll elaborate. MS's argument was a non-sequitur, with no logical connection between why MS's conclusion was inferred from the givens mentioned.

Just because many differ in belief of anything - absolute or investigative doesn't eliminate one group from the possibility of being correct, and certainly not because some are wrong. You've demonstrated no concrete reason differentiating the failure in the analogy, so I stand by it.

If you feel you have strong reasons inferring the conclusion MS reached based on the givens, then you'll need to show your work.

radagast

Jul8-03, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
No. This is not the same. There is not some all knowing everything about evolution being with which we pray to and seek guidance.

With religion, if there truly was some all powerfull being, whom can do anything he wishes, then there is no good reason why there are so many religions that do not agree or compliment one another.

The failure of the above argument rest in an unspoken assumption on the motives of god or god(s). They may not care that most people won't choose the 'correct' religion, wishing only to reward the ones that guessed correctly.

In fact, you cannot provide that good reason, but merely attempt to sidestep by using that same logic on evolutionary matters.

The difference is, evolution is real, it happens, and we know it.

One, when I used the term evolution, I assumed you would realise it was short for 'Evolution with regards to the origins of man'.

That is still a theory, and extremely well evidenced theory and one which fits the evidence many orders of magnitude better than all other competing theories/hypothesis/creationist crap. And as a theory, it has not been proven. Had it been, then it would be a law, not a theory.

Despite all that, the fact that some disagree with it, no matter how misguided, allows the analogy to stand.

There are two ends of a spectrum, in talking about cultural views (and yes, science has its own culture, as do many religions). Cultural relativism and ethnocentrism. The former realizes that the values of any culture are only valid when it's own rules are applied. Applying the Islamic rules to western culture generates a highly skewed and distorted result. Ethnocentricism is the other end of the spectrum, where the belief that all values are absolute and that only one view is correct.

The latter seems to be the view you have of science - that it is the only cultural perspective and that all others are incorrect. While it is true that reality does have many truths that are culturally inviolate, the fact that we cannot know most of them seems to have been missed. Personally I consider that science has an edge on all the other cultures, with respect to tracking down facts and truth, because of the self-correcting nature of science, but that doesn't mean that at any one point in time we can say science has all the answers. In fact, science is mute with regard to all phenomena which cannot produce predictions that are falsifiable.

Royce

Jul9-03, 08:13 AM

[i]
The latter seems to be the view you have of science - that it is the only cultural perspective and that all others are incorrect. While it is true that reality does have many truths that are culturally inviolate, the fact that we cannot know most of them seems to have been missed. Personally I consider that science has an edge on all the other cultures, with respect to tracking down facts and truth, because of the self-correcting nature of science, but that doesn't mean that at any one point in time we can say science has all the answers. In fact, science is mute with regard to all phenomena which cannot produce predictions that are falsifiable.
[/B]

Finally, we get someone who realizes what's actually going on and is not an objective materialistic science zealot!

I agree with everything you said in your last post. I have been trying to point this out to others for some time with little or no success. You have put it much better than I have or can. Good post!
Once again; "The true test of another man's intelligence, is how much he agrees with you."

The one point that I would like to make is that while science may be "the best culture for tracking down facts and truth." Science, as you mention, is very limited in what it can do and what it does do. It does not address, or shouldn't, culture, ethic, moral, spiritual or religious issues. Psychology is more art than science. Science cannot tell us how to live, how to think, how to behave or how to relate to other or the world around us.

Science is very good at what it does; but, just as any tool used the wrong way or in the wrong place or both it can do more harm that good.

As you so well pointed out, Science has PROVED very little. Most scientists point this out immediately almost as a preface. They usually say that the evidence supports... or points to... or indicates the following. Yet many here and everywhere have simply substituted their Physics 101 text book for the Bible and are, as I have said before in other threads, just as fanatical and hardheaded as any group of religionist that I have ever encountered. Again good posts as are your others.

Mentat

Jul9-03, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Is the existence of the universe not enough physical evidence? Before you pooh pooh this I ask you is it any more unreasonable that the anthromorphic principle explaining why the universe is the way it is? Belief in a creator or a God can be just as logical and reasonable as the belief in the Big Bang or any other "theory" with little or no direct evidence to support it.

Censor your use of the word "theory". There is no such thing as a theory with no evidence. In fact, there is no such thing as a theory with a little bit of evidence. Big Bang theory is a theory, which means that it has been verified by rigorous scientific testing.

Just because it is "Science" does not make any more reasonable unless it is firmly based on observation and experiment that is repeatable and varifiable by others.

While evolution has observations and assumptions of what these observations mean and how they are interconnected, evolution makes no predictions that can be varified directly nor can experiments be preformed.

Not at all true. Just take the example of the fruit-flies, who are exposed to a toxin, and then the next generation of those fruit-flies is born immune to the toxin. There's a quick, simple, yet undeniable, prediction of evolution.

Mentat

Jul9-03, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by radagast
One, when I used the term evolution, I assumed you would realise it was short for 'Evolution with regards to the origins of man'.

That is still a theory, and extremely well evidenced theory and one which fits the evidence many orders of magnitude better than all other competing theories/hypothesis/creationist crap. And as a theory, it has not been proven. Had it been, then it would be a law, not a theory.

Okay, this is something that has needed repeating to many times on the PFs, that it should be posted as an Announcement, and set as "Sticky": A theory can not ever be proven. A theory is the highest point on the Scientific Method. A Law is just something that is readily observable, and demonstrably, undeniably, true. If all Scientific discoveries became "Laws" eventually, then all things (even in the realm of Quantum Mechanics, Higher Dimensions, etc) should become readily visible, and demonstrable, but this will never happen.

megashawn

Jul9-03, 04:38 PM

The failure of the above argument rest in an unspoken assumption on the motives of god or god(s). They may not care that most people won't choose the 'correct' religion, wishing only to reward the ones that guessed correctly.

I agree with this, and this is really more like the kind of God I would imagine existing.

But when looking at a certain religion, say, christianity, you will notice certain things said such as "For god so loved man that he gave his only begotten son" or parts about "God loves every man"

You would'nt eternally punish a person you love now would you? Infact, if you really loved someone, would you not be sure to inform them on how to properly acheive there goals? I know I would.

This is why I say things such as The christian god cannot exist, or, he is not as the bible portrays him to be.

The latter seems to be the view you have of science - that it is the only cultural perspective and that all others are incorrect. While it is true that reality does have many truths that are culturally inviolate, the fact that we cannot know most of them seems to have been missed. Personally I consider that science has an edge on all the other cultures, with respect to tracking down facts and truth, because of the self-correcting nature of science, but that doesn't mean that at any one point in time we can say science has all the answers. In fact, science is mute with regard to all phenomena which cannot produce predictions that are falsifiable.

Well here is an assumption that a reading in almost any other thread, maybe this one will disprove. I've often said religions are good for teaching ppl how to live, interact, etc.

I've never claimed science to have all the answers. Hell, I don't even know what the weather is going to do from one day to the next.

Infact, I arrived at most my conclusions about religous matters without science, generally discarding a religion due to its own contradictions and fallacys. It is only since being a member here that I have begun researching more scientific things and using that knowledge to explain, if to noone else then myself, how this place can work without some all powerfull being pushing the buttons.

Royce:
Yet many here and everywhere have simply substituted their Physics 101 text book for the Bible and are, as I have said before in other threads, just as fanatical and hardheaded as any group of religionist that I have ever encountered. Again good posts as are your others.

If people are putting down there bibles and reading books that actually talk about real life events, real things, stuff that can actually happen, and is proven, then where is the harm?

You make out as if discarding a peice of mythology (thats all the bible is) for something educational is a bad thing.

The fact that particular attitude is prevalent in america and probably worldwide, is the very thing that is both holding us back.

I personally think that everyone should learn as much about every religion possible. I know thats a big thing to do, but when a person relizes "Hey, Ancient chinese were doing things about the same as ancient jews, 1500 years ahead of time, but believe in a different god". When a person realizes that all religions are the same, simply a tool for control and proper behavior, then we as a whole can move on into the future.

Or we can remained closed minded about your ideas and not be willing to accept that that which we've believed since a young age is completly wrong.

Royce

Jul10-03, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
Censor your use of the word "theory". There is no such thing as a theory with no evidence. In fact, there is no such thing as a theory with a little bit of evidence. Big Bang theory is a theory, which means that it has been verified by rigorous scientific testing.

I used the word "theory" because it is commonly used to discribe what I would call pure speculation or at best hypothisis. To my knowledge the "Big Bang Theory" is pure speculation supported only by the observation that the universe is now expanding and assuming the it has been expanding since it began and then running the clock backwards to the assumed point of the beginning. It also is supported by the results of COBE measuring the background radiation of the local universe. It is assumed that it is universal and not local and that as it is very nearly the exact temperature to be left over from BB that it is just that. It may be a coincidence or a local phenomena. That is evidence only that there is local background radiation. The rest is assumption and speculation.

That's it. That is all the evidence of the Big Bang.

Not at all true. Just take the example of the fruit-flies, who are exposed to a toxin, and then the next generation of those fruit-flies is born immune to the toxin. There's a quick, simple, yet undeniable, prediction of evolution.

Again I disagree with your conclusions. The above is evidence of a single species adapting to a toxin and passing that adaption along. That is evidence of a possible mechanism of the theory of evolution. That is not direct evidence of Darwin's evolution or that is actually happened.

We have a bunch of fossils that seem to be related and seem to show fundamental structual change correlated to the age of the fossil.

There is no proof that these latter fossils are in fact related to and desended from the earlier ones. It is an assumption that they are and thus support the thoery not prove it.

Mentat, I have told you before that just because you read something in a book does not make it proven fact. I have, in my reading, found very little indication that the actual scientists are stating any more than I am. It is you and others like you that assume it to be proven and fact. Read more carefully the words that they actually say.

Some of course overstate their position and/or findings but few if any actually come out and say that a theory is actually proven fact.
Those that do usually get slapped down immediately.

Royce

Jul10-03, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by megashawn

Royce:

If people are putting down there bibles and reading books that actually talk about real life events, real things, stuff that can actually happen, and is proven, then where is the harm?

You make out as if discarding a peice of mythology (thats all the bible is) for something educational is a bad thing.

The fact that particular attitude is prevalent in america and probably worldwide, is the very thing that is both holding us back.

I personally think that everyone should learn as much about every religion possible. I know thats a big thing to do, but when a person relizes "Hey, Ancient chinese were doing things about the same as ancient jews, 1500 years ahead of time, but believe in a different god". When a person realizes that all religions are the same, simply a tool for control and proper behavior, then we as a whole can move on into the future.

Or we can remained closed minded about your ideas and not be willing to accept that that which we've believed since a young age is completly wrong.

You misunderstand my intent. I think we should all learn as much as possible about not only every religion but every science and keep an open mind about all of it, religion and science. That obviously is a very tall order and vertually impossible to do in real life.

What I am saying is that some people accept the theories and speculations of science as PROVEN FACT in one sentence and in the next say that these proven facts PROVE that God does not, need not and can not exist. Science does no such thing. Science has proven nothing absolutely other than it itself is often wrong or incomplete.
Science readily admits this and says that it is this self-correction that make it so powerful. I agree and understand.

When I and others try to point this out to some, we and our thoughts are rejected out of hand as and in some cases rudely so. It is very similair to trying to reason with any religious fanatic whose mind is made up and please don't confuse him with facts.

Scroll back and read Mentat's post and my response. This is mild and an ongoing discussion between buddies; but, it does illistrate my point. Mentat like to bull bait and play the devil's advocate. I know he is not nearly so fanatical nor closed mind.

Mentat

Jul10-03, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I used the word "theory" because it is commonly used to discribe what I would call pure speculation or at best hypothisis. To my knowledge the "Big Bang Theory" is pure speculation supported only by the observation that the universe is now expanding and assuming the it has been expanding since it began and then running the clock backwards to the assumed point of the beginning. It also is supported by the results of COBE measuring the background radiation of the local universe. It is assumed that it is universal and not local and that as it is very nearly the exact temperature to be left over from BB that it is just that. It may be a coincidence or a local phenomena. That is evidence only that there is local background radiation. The rest is assumption and speculation.

That's it. That is all the evidence of the Big Bang.

Right...the Big Bang at it's basic heart postulates that the Universe is expanding, and has been doing so since it's beginning, and makes predictions about background radiation and temperature. These predictions turn out to be correct, and we happend to observe the expansion of the Universe. How is that not proof that all of the postulates of the actual BB theory are true? Yes, there have been add-ons, such as explanations of what started the process, and what keeps it going, but these are not part of the theory, but merely hypotheses that are used to describe that which has graduated to "theory".

Again I disagree with your conclusions. The above is evidence of a single species adapting to a toxin and passing that adaption along. That is evidence of a possible mechanism of the theory of evolution. That is not direct evidence of Darwin's evolution or that is actually happened.

What are you talking about? The theory of evolution predicts the survival of the fittest, and that's what happens in the fruit-fly experiment. What else is there to show?

We have a bunch of fossils that seem to be related and seem to show fundamental structual change correlated to the age of the fossil.

There is no proof that these latter fossils are in fact related to and desended from the earlier ones. It is an assumption that they are and thus support the thoery not prove it.

Well sure it's an assumptions, but genetic recombination, meiotic mutation, and just plain observed differences between people and their parents, are supporting evidence of that "assumption".

Mentat, I have told you before that just because you read something in a book does not make it proven fact. I have, in my reading, found very little indication that the actual scientists are stating any more than I am. It is you and others like you that assume it to be proven and fact. Read more carefully the words that they actually say.

I have been. I think what your problem is, with many well-supported theories, is that you have been reading the books that go into the not-so-well-supported hypotheses that are used as possible explanations of the the theory. The theory itself stands alone from it's possible explanations, and most books don't show that (it often takes a reading of actual textbooks to find information on the theory itself).

Some of course overstate their position and/or findings but few if any actually come out and say that a theory is actually proven fact.
Those that do usually get slapped down immediately.

The Scientific Method itself (the very basis of Science) puts theories as the highest goal. It is not some crackpot scientist that thinks that theories are the grandest stage of scientific inquiry; it's a fact, at the very heart of the Scientific Method. Seriously, my good buddy Royce [:)], one needs to make the intellectual distinction between layman texts and the actual science that they are trying to describe. A layman text will give you room for such arguments as "it's just a theory", or "it's not proven yet", but the actual science behind the theory is based on the Scientific Method, which sees nothing as being "beyond theory" (and sees "theories" as hypotheses that have been tested rigorously).

Royce

Jul10-03, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Right...the Big Bang at it's basic heart postulates that the Universe is expanding, and has been doing so since it's beginning, and makes predictions about background radiation and temperature. These predictions turn out to be correct, and we happend to observe the expansion of the Universe. How is that not proof that all of the postulates of the actual BB theory are true?

Simply to observe that thee universe is now expanding does not prove that it has always been expanding nor does it prove that running the clock backward to zero is valid.
Yes the background radiation is the correct temperature and supports the theory. If and only is the bachground radiation observed is that which iis left over from the big bang and not simply the temperature of the local universe that we happen to be observing which coincidentlty matches that of the BB. No proof. one observation and lots of assumptions does not a proven theory make.

What are you talking about? The theory of evolution predicts the survival of the fittest, and that's what happens in the fruit-fly experiment. What else is there to show?

What the experiment shows is that these particular fruit flies can over generations build up a tolerance for that toxin. It has been shown that other simple life forms can also. This does not prove the origins of species nor surfival of the fittest. It proves only what it tests. Too apply that too the rest of the world and its inhabitants is a BIG assumption.

Well sure it's an assumptions, but genetic recombination, meiotic mutation, and just plain observed differences between people and their parents, are supporting evidence of that "assumption".

Absolutely, but the keyword is assumption. I'm not denying that they are valid or invalid. I am pointing out that they are assumptions not proof.

I have been. I think what your problem is, with many well-supported theories, is that you have been reading the books that go into the not-so-well-supported hypotheses that are used as possible explanations of the the theory. The theory itself stands alone from it's possible explanations, and most books don't show that (it often takes a reading of actual textbooks to find information on the theory itself).

I read and studies those text books long before you were born, my friend, and have been studying various field of science since. In fortyfive or so years of study and reading I can not remember one proof that God does or does not exist or one proof that science knows anything as absolute fact. Even you have said that in other posts. Something like, science doesn't deal in absolutes whereas religion does.

My belief in God is based on just as rigid reasoning and observation as my belief in science. The difference is, is that I know and admit that both are based on belive and assumption and both are unknown and unknowable in any absolute terms. Science neither validates nor invalidates my theist belief just as my theist beliefs neither validae nor invalidate my scientific beliefs.

Mentat

Jul11-03, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Simply to observe that thee universe is now expanding does not prove that it has always been expanding nor does it prove that running the clock backward to zero is valid.

Actually, had you thought of the fact that expansion had to start at some point in time (obviously), and you'd need some kind of explanation of why/how it started expanding after already being "big", since you can't use the explanation of the BB theory - that all of the energy was condenced(sp?) into a much smaller "point".

Yes the background radiation is the correct temperature and supports the theory. If and only is the bachground radiation observed is that which iis left over from the big bang and not simply the temperature of the local universe that we happen to be observing which coincidentlty matches that of the BB. No proof. one observation and lots of assumptions does not a proven theory make.

Good buddy Royce, you left the realm of Science. In Science, a theory is "innocent 'till proven guilty" (or, more accurately, "true 'till proven false, and replaced by something better). That means that you can't just say "it could be a coincidence that the prediction turned out to match reality", you have to come up with a "better" theory ("better" meaning that either the one being replaced has a flaw that yours doesn't, or that yours makes less assumptions but is still just as accurate (Occam's Razor)) to replace BB with.

What the experiment shows is that these particular fruit flies can over generations build up a tolerance for that toxin. It has been shown that other simple life forms can also. This does not prove the origins of species nor surfival of the fittest. It proves only what it tests. Too apply that too the rest of the world and its inhabitants is a BIG assumption.

It's not "those particular fruit-flies", those have long since died - it is their children that were born with the immunity.

Besides, it's just an example of the change of a species over a certain period of time, due to some external pressure, and that is all that the pure evolutionary theory predicts (though some of the add-ons are rather convincing, they are not part of the pure theory).

Absolutely, but the keyword is assumption. I'm not denying that they are valid or invalid. I am pointing out that they are assumptions not proof.

Listen to yourself! They are not supposed to "be proof", they are supposed to "be proved". And the things I mentioned (along with quite a few other bits of undesputable fact/observation) are proofs for the theory.

I read and studies those text books long before you were born, my friend, and have been studying various field of science since. In fortyfive or so years of study and reading I can not remember one proof that God does or does not exist or one proof that science knows anything as absolute fact. Even you have said that in other posts. Something like, science doesn't deal in absolutes whereas religion does.

That's true, Science doesn't deal with absolutes, because absolutes are just assumptions, while theories can be drawn from Inductive/experimental methods.

Besides, I've already explained in many other threads that it is impossible to prove or disprove God.

My belief in God is based on just as rigid reasoning and observation as my belief in science. The difference is, is that I know and admit that both are based on belive and assumption and both are unknown and unknowable in any absolute terms. Science neither validates nor invalidates my theist belief just as my theist beliefs neither validae nor invalidate my scientific beliefs.

But the distinction is that there is no objective proof of any kind that validates the belief in God. Note: I'm not suggesting that it is wrong to believe in God, I am merely showing you the difference between Science and "belief" or "faith". Faith/belief do not need any kind of empirical basis, while Scientific theories cannot even come into existence without some kind of empirical proofs.

Royce

Jul12-03, 07:44 AM

Mentat,
I am not disputing the BB or Evolution. I am disputing that they have been PROVEN (your word not mine). If they have been proven they would be laws now not theories. Both are based on reasoning, deduction and assumptions. This is, we agree, valid scientific processes but it is not proof.

My only point is that my "theory" that God exists and created the universe (but not as told in the bible) is based on exactly the same process and not on faith alone. Why is it a valid process when termed scientific but not a valid process when termed metaphysical?
That is a double standard.

You cannot have it both ways ,Mentant. If one is valid the other is valid also. If one is not valid then neither is the other. I am not going to let you get away with contradicting yourself in the same post as you just did from one pargraph to the next; nor, am I going to let you pick and choose which or when the same system of reasoning is valid and when it is not valid.

The process is ether valid all the time whenever and wherever used or it is not valid ever, no matter when or where it is used. What makes the conclusion reached valid or not is the evidence that supports it and we are using the same evidence but looking at it in different ways.

I say God caused the BB to happen if indeed it did happen and God wrote the laws by which the universe behaves including life which is evidenced by the same data that supports evolution. I say that it shows intent, purpose and orgaization beyound that possible by chance alone.

You spport the pobability principle that it is all possible by chance alone. IOW all is a marvelous series of improbable accidents. My reply is, yes, that is very remotely possible but the universe is not old enough yet for it to have all happened by accident, probability, alone.

We are both making assumptions and basing those assumption of evidence, the same evidence but looked at in different ways. One way is no more valid or invalid than the other.

Mentat

Jul12-03, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Royce
I am not disputing the BB or Evolution. I am disputing that they have been PROVEN (your word not mine). If they have been proven they would be laws now not theories. Both are based on reasoning, deduction and assumptions. This is, we agree, valid scientific processes but it is not proof.

You are almost correct, and I'd love to just say that you are right and move on, but there is one clarification that must be made: A theory can never be proven to be absolutely true, but it can be proven to many degrees of accuracy (as far as Inductive Logic can be considered accurate).

My only point is that my "theory" that God exists and created the universe (but not as told in the bible) is based on exactly the same process and not on faith alone. Why is it a valid process when termed scientific but not a valid process when termed metaphysical?
That is a double standard.

No it's not, it's a scientific standard. First off, you haven't presented any proof that God created the Universe. Secondly, yours cannot ever be a "theory" or a "Law", if it is not scientific, as those are scientific terms. And Lastly, if God were metaphysical, He couldn't interact with the physical Universe, as I've shown in a previous thread.

You cannot have it both ways ,Mentant. If one is valid the other is valid also. If one is not valid then neither is the other. I am not going to let you get away with contradicting yourself in the same post as you just did from one pargraph to the next; nor, am I going to let you pick and choose which or when the same system of reasoning is valid and when it is not valid.

I don't contradict myself (at least not on purpose [t)]) on the same thread. That would be just foolish.

The process is ether valid all the time whenever and wherever used or it is not valid ever, no matter when or where it is used. What makes the conclusion reached valid or not is the evidence that supports it and we are using the same evidence but looking at it in different ways.

I say God caused the BB to happen if indeed it did happen and God wrote the laws by which the universe behaves including life which is evidenced by the same data that supports evolution. I say that it shows intent, purpose and orgaization beyound that possible by chance alone.

You spport the pobability principle that it is all possible by chance alone. IOW all is a marvelous series of improbable accidents. My reply is, yes, that is very remotely possible but the universe is not old enough yet for it to have all happened by accident, probability, alone.

Well that final statement is dead wrong, since the Universe could have existed for any incalculable (perhaps infinite, though that rather boggles the mind) period of time.

We are both making assumptions and basing those assumption of evidence, the same evidence but looked at in different ways. One way is no more valid or invalid than the other.

You keep saying this, but I disagree, only in that you have provided no empirical evidence of the merit of your hypothesis.

Let me explain one thing: Science is, by it's very nature, agnostic. It cannot be used to "know" something. Thus, Science doesn't care about whether God did or didn't start the Universe's current processes, it only cares about the current processes themselves.

Royce

Jul12-03, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Mentat

No it's not, it's a scientific standard. First off, you haven't presented any proof that God created the Universe. Secondly, yours cannot ever be a "theory" or a "Law", if it is not scientific, as those are scientific terms. And Lastly, if God were metaphysical, He couldn't interact with the physical Universe, as I've shown in a previous thread.

I am not trying to prove that God exist nor is it a theory. That's why I put quotes around it. What I am showing is that my reasoning and reasons for my beliefs are the product of a valid thought process and not a product of faith alone. This is the questiuon asked at the start of this thread.

One is science the other metaphysics, apples and oranges. I was showing why and how my reasoning is reasonable and valid, just as valid as the reasoning processes of science, though not science. A comparison not an identity.

I don't contradict myself (at least not on purpose ) on the same thread. That would be just foolish.

the following are quotes from previous post in this thread.

Censor your use of the word "theory". There is no such thing as a theory with no evidence. In fact, there is no such thing as a theory with a little bit of evidence.

Then another place you say:

Good buddy Royce, you left the realm of Science. In Science, a theory is "innocent 'till proven guilty" (or, more accurately, "true 'till proven false, and replaced by something better). That means that you can't just say "it could be a coincidence that the prediction turned out to match reality", you have to come up with a "better" theory ("better" meaning that either the one being replaced has a flaw that yours doesn't, or that yours makes less assumptions but is still just as accurate (Occam's Razor)) to replace BB with.

Well that final statement is dead wrong, since the Universe could have existed for any incalculable (perhaps infinite, though that rather boggles the mind) period of time.

Since the current prevailing model of the origins of the universe is the BB and we both accept it as probably true, my statement holds as the univererse is thought to be 10 - 15 billion years old and the earth itself is 1/3 of that age. There are as you said other models, but we always go back to First Cause don't we.

You keep saying this, but I disagree, only in that you have provided no empirical evidence of the merit of your hypothesis.

But, that is exactly what I am doing. I am using the same observations as those of science. The only difference is that I'm not using them as proof but as support for my alternate hypothesis.
I do not attempt to prove or disprove anything. I only show that the hypothesis that God exists and and created the universe is just as reasonable as any other alternative.

Let me explain one thing: Science is, by it's very nature, agnostic. It cannot be used to "know" something. Thus, Science doesn't care about whether God did or didn't start the Universe's current processes, it only cares about the current processes themselves.

Then why do you and others keep bring up science in metaphysical threads and claiming that your, science's, proven theories have proved that God does not exist, can not exist and/or need not exist.

Mentat

Jul14-03, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I am not trying to prove that God exist nor is it a theory. That's why I put quotes around it. What I am showing is that my reasoning and reasons for my beliefs are the product of a valid thought process and not a product of faith alone.

The product of what valid thought process?

One is science the other metaphysics, apples and oranges. I was showing why and how my reasoning is reasonable and valid, just as valid as the reasoning processes of science, though not science. A comparison not an identity.

But you have yet to show why your thought process (which you haven't described) is as valid as science.

the following are quotes from previous post in this thread.

[quote]
Censor your use of the word "theory". There is no such thing as a theory with no evidence. In fact, there is no such thing as a theory with a little bit of evidence.

Then another place you say:

Good buddy Royce, you left the realm of Science. In Science, a theory is "innocent 'till proven guilty" (or, more accurately, "true 'till proven false, and replaced by something better). That means that you can't just say "it could be a coincidence that the prediction turned out to match reality", you have to come up with a "better" theory ("better" meaning that either the one being replaced has a flaw that yours doesn't, or that yours makes less assumptions but is still just as accurate (Occam's Razor)) to replace BB with.

Where is the contradiction? First I said that there is no such thing as a theory with a little bit of evidence (since it must have lots of evidence before it becomes a theory), and then I said that it is innocent 'till proven guilty, and that it's replacement theory must be able to explain the same phenomena that the previous theory did, and do a better job. I see no contradiction.

Since the current prevailing model of the origins of the universe is the BB and we both accept it as probably true, my statement holds as the univererse is thought to be 10 - 15 billion years old and the earth itself is 1/3 of that age. There are as you said other models, but we always go back to First Cause don't we.

You only mentioned one of the many BB theories. The BB theory says nothing other than "The known Universe was once smaller, but has expanded since then, and is still expanding". Whether the "known Universe" is expanding into another (larger, perhaps infinite) Universe, is not covered by the basic theory, and is up for hypothesis. How old our local Universe is can be known, but it may be expanding into another Universe, and we couldn't possibly gain knowledge of that one.

But, that is exactly what I am doing. I am using the same observations as those of science. The only difference is that I'm not using them as proof but as support for my alternate hypothesis.
I do not attempt to prove or disprove anything. I only show that the hypothesis that God exists and and created the universe is just as reasonable as any other alternative.

But you have not shown this. Science follows Inductive Logic, and thus doesn't attempt to "prove" anything, for a certainty. However, it does explain that which can be observed and studied objectively, which is something that you have not done.

Then why do you and others keep bring up science in metaphysical threads and claiming that your, science's, proven theories have proved that God does not exist, can not exist and/or need not exist.

I have never and will never say that Science proves that God doesn't exist (as I said before, it is agnostic at it's very heart, and can form no opinion of God or other such certainties - outside of the observable Universe), however I have said that Science shows that He needn't exist, because it can offer other ideas as to the origin of the Universe. Even you yourself have admitted that the idea of God is only as logical as any Sciences theories of origin (if even that logical, which remains to be determined), and thus Science doesn't care whether God exists or not, but cannot take for granted that He does.

Side Note: Science is atheistic, but not anti-theistic. Tom showed the difference in a previous thread. I'll paraphrase: Theism is the assumption that there is a deity of some kind. Anti-theism is the assumption that there is not. Atheism is just the lack of assumption on the matter (meaning, an atheist will not take for granted that God doesn't exist, but will not take for granted that He doesn't either, since that would make him/her an anti-theist).

Royce

Jul14-03, 05:17 PM

Your right Mentat, I haven't actually said what my reasoning is. I have implied it but not said it here in this threat. I hasve in other thread given parts and pieces but not the basis of my reasoning.

I am thinking og starting a new thread opening with my reasoning laid out step by step in paper or essay but have not yet done it because it is not yet clear in my mind how to actually put it into words without writing a book.

I will use this opportunity to give it a try, a rehearsal, if you will. Being buddies I know that if you blow it apart you will do it mildly. If you crucify me you will do it gently.

Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

The universe is ordered and organized to a high degree. The Universe is logical, consistant and mathematical or can be described to extreme accuracy using matematics and logic. The universe has physical laws and rules that are knowable and consistant and that are obeyed and followed precisely at least on a macro scale.
The universe, if one assumes that the Big Bang actual took place and is the origin of the universe as we know it, has evolved from near total chaos to nearly total cosmos, to the point that stars have planets orbiting them that can and, at least on one, do support a thriving complex life form.
Both cosmological evolution and life's evolution here on Earth has led to us, Mankind, Homo Sapiens who can know, comprehend, search for and discover both the universe itself and what makes it work as it does. This leaves one glaring unanswered question. Why?
It is my reasoning that the creation and evolution of the universe shows purpose and intent as does the evolution of life at least here on Earth.
It is written that Man was created in God's image. I believe that it is not a physical image but a mental image that the statememnt refers to. Our logic and mathematics are solely abstranct products
of our mind yet these abstraction are able to discribe physical reality to a degree of accuracy that the margin of error has been compared to the thickness of a playing card when measuring the distance to the moon.
We of course have to modify our theories, laws, mathematics and logic from time to time in order to better model reality but we can do it and do do it. We humans can and do know the universe how it works and why it works the way it does from the largest structures of the universe to the smallest wave particle.
Our knowledge is not yet total nor complete nor is our understanding. It may never be. But, we do and can know the universe and understand it.
It is my reasonable hypothesis that Mankinds mind is created via purposful and intentional evolution, both cosmological and biological, in the image of the Creator, God. We are created in his mental image, the same method of reasoning, so that we can know both his creation and him.
Assuming that the Big Bang did actually start somewhere, somewhen, then it was God who started it; created that moment and energy or caused it to happen exactly how it happened with the exact properties to make it possible to expand and evolve into what it is today. It is God's laws that we discover and call natural or physical laws. It is our minds of the same order as Gods mind, but obviously not the same order of magnatude, that allows us to discover, know and understand Gods laws.
There is no apparent logical reason why like charges should repel and unlike charges should attract. There is no apparent logical reason why the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity or cosmological force should act the way they do. There is no apparent logical reason that QM and QED should behave the way they do. Yet all of this does behave the way it does and all of this is necessary for the universe to exist and for us to exist.
The universe is exactly the way it is because if it were not the exact way it is it would not exist at all much less be so ordered and organized that life, intelligent life can come to be, to know that it is and the universe is, and know, or wonder about, God.
This is all too much for me to believe that all of this is an accident of probability. Not only is the Universe exactly how it must, and can only, be; but, the series of events that came about that inevitably lead to us happened; and, happened in the exact order necessary to bring about intelligent life. This is to me at least too much to be coincidence or accident. It is evidence or support for purpose and intent and that is evidence and support for the existence of God the Creator. This too me is much more reasonable than random happenstance or accident. It is, to me, just as reasonable and says more than the anthropic principle.

megashawn

Jul14-03, 06:20 PM

Royce, no offense here, but you are doing the exact same thing that man has done all through time.

You don't know why like forces repel, and therefore attribute it to god.

Perhaps, in our pursuit of knowledge, we will discover a logicical reason why, but at this point in time, you say there is no logical reason.

To me, there is no logical reason to abandon hope in finding a "logical reason why" and simply attribute it as a quality/ability of god.

Hey, if it makes it easier for ya to wake up and breath, even though there is no logical reason why you should have to breath, by all means pursue it.

It is just as the man who walked out his cave one day, and saw a tree get struck by lighting, and start fire.

He doesn't know what just happened, and since all he knows is a flash of power came from the sky, he thinks its either a gift or threat from some person above.

Well, now we've got a Lighting God.

I don't really see a need in arguing about an actual god. I mean, lets face it, unless God himself comes and tells us whats going on, none of us are going to agree 100%.

And really, if you look at the powers all most every religion grants there gods, frankly, there is no logical reason why the true god has not revealed himself.

I'll not argue that there may be some grand designer behind the universe we know.

Maybe. Thats all any of us can really do. Honestly, we don't know enough about the universe to determine if it was designed to be the way it is, or if it is a fluke.

This leaves one glaring unanswered question. Why?

But even the God theory does not fufill this question. Where did god come from? How was he created? Why was he created? Why did he create the universe? If, from a christian POV, god is all powerfull, why didn't he skip the drama (last however many years) and simply create a perfect society? Why?

I could keep going. It seems to me adding an all powerfull god into the scheme only makes things more complex.

And I'd say lets take a ride on Occams razor, until god himself wants to set the record strait.

Royce

Jul14-03, 08:07 PM

At one time in my life I agreed completely with you and I can still see your point of view. I still agree with much that you say.
The one thing, in purely intellectual reasoning, that points to God, the creative mind, in my opinion, is the exactness and precision with which the universe came into being. If things were not exactly as they are the universe would not exist at all or in any form that could lead to life and intellegence coming about. That and the fact that a purely abstract creation of the mind of ancient man has developed into the logic and mathematics we use today to describe the univerce with such accuracy. I seems to support the idea that a mind of the same type of reasoning and intellegence but far greater power created it and its laws. Maybe I should call it the super anthropic principle.
The above is not the only reasons that I am convinced that God is and cares. It is only the rational reasons I do.

radagast

Jul15-03, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Royce
I used the word "theory" because it is commonly used to describe what I would call pure speculation or at best hypothisis.

This is a danger. Theory, as common usage (which you say is the definition you are using) isn't the same word (by definition) as that used in science.

In science, theories always have a high degree of evidence to support them. Even a hypothesis has a good amount of evidence. In science terminology, your definition doesn't match the words theory or hypothesis. Perhaps speculation. Take care to make certain the terms aren't used interchangably, in a scientific context. It leads to great misunderstanding.

To my knowledge the "Big Bang Theory" is pure speculation supported only by the observation that the universe is now expanding and assuming the it has been expanding since it began and then running the clock backwards to the assumed point of the beginning. It also is supported by the results of COBE measuring the background radiation of the local universe. It is assumed that it is universal and not local and that as it is very nearly the exact temperature to be left over from BB that it is just that. It may be a coincidence or a local phenomena. That is evidence only that there is local background radiation. The rest is assumption and speculation.

That's it. That is all the evidence of the Big Bang.

Based on the evidence we have, which is fairly considerable, the BB fits better than other theories, hypotheses, or speculations, assuming Occam razor is still available for use. We have to make assuptions on generalization of the local conditions, unless we wish to simply throw up our arms and consider the problems not worthy of investigation. Unless you have a better way of investigating it, it is necessary, and though often unspoken, known to any scientist. I have always known that there was an assumption, as a chemist, that the physical constants I see in effect when I measure the rates of reaction, are the same here as at the opposite ends of the galaxy. Until such time as we can check, this is not a bizarre or strained assumption.

Again I disagree with your conclusions. The above is evidence of a single species adapting to a toxin and passing that adaption along. That is evidence of a possible mechanism of the theory of evolution. That is not direct evidence of Darwin's evolution or that is actually happened.

Modern evolutionary theory is based on two things, mutation, and natural selection. Both are about as close to proven as anything I accept as real.

Evolution, as in the origin of man vs. the evolution we see everyday (animal husbandry, microbial resistance to antibiotics, et. al.), isn't proven. Without a time machine, it would be fairly hard to. It does have a vast amount of evidence to support it, and explains the evidence better that any other theory, assuming Mr. Occams razor isn't prematurely discarded.

I would very much like to see the evidence, for the species, which in one generation acquired toxin resistance (with no evidence that it was a small, but already existent capability in some of their genetic makeup).

We have a bunch of fossils that seem to be related and seem to show fundamental structual change correlated to the age of the fossil.

There is no proof that these latter fossils are in fact related to and desended from the earlier ones. It is an assumption that they are and thus support the thoery not prove it.

You are correct. However, the theory is the best explanation we currently have for that evidence. Without a time machine, it is never possible to prove things that happened in prehistory, without some axiomatic assumptions (such as their were no magical fairies mucking with the laws of nature, etc.).

Mentat, I have told you before that just because you read something in a book does not make it proven fact. I have, in my reading, found very little indication that the actual scientists are stating any more than I am. It is you and others like you that assume it to be proven and fact. Read more carefully the words that they actually say.

To say they are proven is certainly an error. Aspects of many theories are proven, but I have never heard of any theory that has been proven - it's just not part of science.

By the same token, many theories have more supporting evidence than the things we take as fact in daily life. I cannot say if you are using the terms this way, but too many non-science types tend to like to use the word theory, with it's non-science definition, as if it's merely speculation or opinion.

In Response to thinks written by mentat and megashawn. While we are likely of similar minds on most scientific realities, your terms have really given me the willies. ANYONE that bandies the word 'facts', 'truth', and 'proven' around with impunity, starts revving up my BS detector. These are terms I expect to hear from religious zealots, but almost never heard from the scientific community.

megashawn

Jul15-03, 03:39 PM

Uhm, What do you mean? Could you perhaps provide an example?

Royce

Jul15-03, 04:01 PM

Radagast, I agree completely with you in everything you've said.
I used quotes around theory to show that I was using in inapproperiately as Mentat had and does unless he is chastising others not to.
My reasoning is speculation based on the same evidence as science has on the begining and evolution of both the universe and evolution.
I have very little doubt that they are valid and for the most part true though not complete nor completely understood. For those reasons I think that the common use of the term theory applied to them including most scientist is improper in the strict scientific use of the term and that is what I was trying to point out.
None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread nor my post "Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator."

Mentat

Jul18-03, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Your right Mentat, I haven't actually said what my reasoning is. I have implied it but not said it here in this threat. I hasve in other thread given parts and pieces but not the basis of my reasoning.

I am thinking og starting a new thread opening with my reasoning laid out step by step in paper or essay but have not yet done it because it is not yet clear in my mind how to actually put it into words without writing a book.

I will use this opportunity to give it a try, a rehearsal, if you will. Being buddies I know that if you blow it apart you will do it mildly. If you crucify me you will do it gently.

Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

The universe is ordered and organized to a high degree. The Universe is logical, consistant and mathematical or can be described to extreme accuracy using matematics and logic. The universe has physical laws and rules that are knowable and consistant and that are obeyed and followed precisely at least on a macro scale.
The universe, if one assumes that the Big Bang actual took place and is the origin of the universe as we know it, has evolved from near total chaos to nearly total cosmos, to the point that stars have planets orbiting them that can and, at least on one, do support a thriving complex life form.
Both cosmological evolution and life's evolution here on Earth has led to us, Mankind, Homo Sapiens who can know, comprehend, search for and discover both the universe itself and what makes it work as it does. This leaves one glaring unanswered question. Why?
It is my reasoning that the creation and evolution of the universe shows purpose and intent as does the evolution of life at least here on Earth.
It is written that Man was created in God's image. I believe that it is not a physical image but a mental image that the statememnt refers to. Our logic and mathematics are solely abstranct products
of our mind yet these abstraction are able to discribe physical reality to a degree of accuracy that the margin of error has been compared to the thickness of a playing card when measuring the distance to the moon.
We of course have to modify our theories, laws, mathematics and logic from time to time in order to better model reality but we can do it and do do it. We humans can and do know the universe how it works and why it works the way it does from the largest structures of the universe to the smallest wave particle.
Our knowledge is not yet total nor complete nor is our understanding. It may never be. But, we do and can know the universe and understand it.
It is my reasonable hypothesis that Mankinds mind is created via purposful and intentional evolution, both cosmological and biological, in the image of the Creator, God. We are created in his mental image, the same method of reasoning, so that we can know both his creation and him.
Assuming that the Big Bang did actually start somewhere, somewhen, then it was God who started it; created that moment and energy or caused it to happen exactly how it happened with the exact properties to make it possible to expand and evolve into what it is today. It is God's laws that we discover and call natural or physical laws. It is our minds of the same order as Gods mind, but obviously not the same order of magnatude, that allows us to discover, know and understand Gods laws.
There is no apparent logical reason why like charges should repel and unlike charges should attract. There is no apparent logical reason why the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity or cosmological force should act the way they do. There is no apparent logical reason that QM and QED should behave the way they do. Yet all of this does behave the way it does and all of this is necessary for the universe to exist and for us to exist.
The universe is exactly the way it is because if it were not the exact way it is it would not exist at all much less be so ordered and organized that life, intelligent life can come to be, to know that it is and the universe is, and know, or wonder about, God.
This is all too much for me to believe that all of this is an accident of probability. Not only is the Universe exactly how it must, and can only, be; but, the series of events that came about that inevitably lead to us happened; and, happened in the exact order necessary to bring about intelligent life. This is to me at least too much to be coincidence or accident. It is evidence or support for purpose and intent and that is evidence and support for the existence of God the Creator. This too me is much more reasonable than random happenstance or accident. It is, to me, just as reasonable and says more than the anthropic principle.

Where have I seen this before...hm [:D].

Seriously, I've already picked this apart, since it's exactly what you wrote in your first post. All you are doing is explaining (through the use of partially faulty reasoning - as I've already shown) why you wont accept that it came about without intelligent design. You are not reasoning as to why it must (logically, scientifically, or in any way philosophically) be true.

That is what I meant by "present your reasoning".

Mentat

Jul18-03, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Royce
At one time in my life I agreed completely with you and I can still see your point of view. I still agree with much that you say.
The one thing, in purely intellectual reasoning, that points to God, the creative mind, in my opinion, is the exactness and precision with which the universe came into being. If things were not exactly as they are the universe would not exist at all or in any form that could lead to life and intellegence coming about. That and the fact that a purely abstract creation of the mind of ancient man has developed into the logic and mathematics we use today to describe the univerce with such accuracy. I seems to support the idea that a mind of the same type of reasoning and intellegence but far greater power created it and its laws. Maybe I should call it the super anthropic principle.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why it is logical to assume that the fact that humans have been able to develop logic, to describe the behavior of the Universe so accurately, is any indication that it (the Universe) was initially created to be logical. After all, it could have been (as I've said numerous times) one of an enormous number of Big Bangs, possibly the only one that continued existing.

The above is not the only reasons that I am convinced that God is and cares. It is only the rational reasons I do.

Rational reasons are independent of "I refuse to believe" statements. I say this because rationality and logic are completely free of personal biases.

(PM)