Faith vs Proof: Religion & Universe Explored

[Iacchus32]

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 necessary 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]

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

I mean, let's 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No, that comment was made due to the way you sidestepped my entire argument 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 theories of existence?

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 theories of existence? [/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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
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 their 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]

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]

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 completely neccassary for human coexistance to take place. but in the cosmic picture, they are meaninless.

 

[Zantra]

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.

As maximus says, it's necessary for humans to coexist. I was speaking more of personal sacrifices that people make in the name of the church, such as tithing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Do Standards Exist?

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]

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 completely 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]

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]

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]

Let's remember that 'lower' animals also display altruism. It isn't unique to humans, although it tends to exist predominantly in mammals, and more so 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]

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 more so 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]

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

 

[Zero]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).