Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

[Hurkyl]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!Before you respond, consider a bigger picture. You, as a scientist, are about to give a lecture on the reasons why some of these alledged inconsistencies are okay, and how the others represent a state of incomplete knowledge that science is striving to correct. Now, consider that Christian theists (and probably other religious theists) often respond to alledged inconsistencies in Religous thought by explaining how some of the inconsistencies aren't real inconsistencies, but stem from a misinterpretation, and respond to others as the state of an incomplete knowledge of God.

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism. You have, at best, an outsiders knowledge of the hot issues, heavily biased by your presumption from the outset that religion is idiocy. I also presume if you have seen the arguments of those educated in religion that you have dismissed them after a casual reading rather than taken them seriously and deeply considered if they could be right.

So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?

Sure. Religion is a brain product (imagination which is not based in facts nor logic), that is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: BigFootSanta created all toys we see around us). Same with misunderstanding science, or with layman view of it - inconsistensy is in layman brain only simply because layman brain does not know science.

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!

There is no inconsistency here. Same as there is no inconsistency between round and flat Earth - every farmer, engineer, student, and almost every scientists successfully uses flat Earth math (just because small fraction of round is flat).

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism.

Correct, I did not waste time on santaclausology. Instead, I learned how nature works.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion? [/B]

From this web site: "Several hundred never before seen galaxies are visible in this "deepest-ever" view of the universe, called the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), made with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Besides the classical spiral and elliptical shaped galaxies, there is a bewildering variety of other galaxy shapes and colors that are important clues to understanding the evolution of the universe. Some of the galaxies may have formed less that one billion years after the Big Bang."

What is inconsistent here?

 

[Hurkyl]

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.
[/size]

Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.
[/size]

Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

See - you claims are based on LACK of facts (equinoxal eggs, he he, Christianity, Bible, etc). Mine - on facts. Because a truth is defined as a compliance with fact, I am telling truth and you are telling false. Just logic, dude, logic.

Religion is untested view of primitive people - as someone here said.

You put yourself in a corner simply because you don't know the definition of truth. Read dictionary - criteria of truth is observed fact (Marx).

 

[Hurkyl]

Just logic, dude, logic.

Slight problem. Logic provides only rules of inference, and there isn't even universal agreement amongst mathematicians what the correct set of rules of inference is.

So how can you claim any fact whatosever from "just logic"?



And it would do wonders for your case if you could present an argument for someone who doesn't currently believe exactly what you believe.

 

[Alexander]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic. All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth. Say, many religion claims contradict to observable facts (say, 6000 year old Earth, or making Sun in 1 day, or making man out of clay, etc). Thus they are not true.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth.

The definition of "true" in formal logic is merely one of the two values in the range of a truth assignment, which is merely a function from a domain of formulas (a.k.a. elements of some mathematical language) into the set {true, false}.


Your post begs two questions:

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?
(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.


Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

Well, if you don't derive any fact from logic, I'm speculating as to why you would believe a statement would be a fact.

You seem to have asserted previously that logic is the only valid form of proof.
You don't prove facts with logic.
I presume that you believe that statements you claim as fact are indeed fact.
Faith is belief without proof.

Conclusion: Any beliefs you have of the form "X is a fact" must be derived from faith.

Is this accurate, or am I missing something?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

So, what is a real occurence, and how can we base knowledge or information upon it?

From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

Ok, so your definition bears little resemblance to the logical definition of truth. As such, it would be inappropriate to use your definition of truth in an alledged logical argument against Religion.

And if you're allowed to select your own definition of truth apart from the logical definition, can you give a reason why a religious person cannot select their own definition of truth and have their arguments just as valid as yours?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Saint
Quote:

Leading scientists still reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Many contemporary religions believe an act of creation by an omnipotent deity gave birth to the infinite cosmos.

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theological theories begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must certainly have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy with the assertion that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course, when the laws of nature are discarded anything is possible, even the absurd. There are attributes of the Universe which are beyond logic, but they are not immune from natural laws. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to argue against logic, itself, and no rational theory can be crafted in the absence of reason.

 

[New-Prototype]

I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but religion is a sham! I believe that these thoughts and beliefs were only created so the people in the church can make money. Humans need things to believe in, especially if it explains things that we do not understand. For instance, spontaneous generation was a belief used to explain how flies seem to come out of rotting food and eels from mud (errr at i think it was eels). And well, just like God he might have been an idea thought up by someone in attempt to explain how life came into existence. But the idea and belief itself has flaws that proves that there is no God; however, there are still incidents in this world that disproves people of their opinions that there is no God.

Such as how do you explain a dramatic improvement in a patient who was supposed to die because they had no way of being revived or cured (a mircale)? And what about that talking baby that got borned?! It was all over the chinese newspapers, you know? The child was given birth and then when it was held by it's parents it said something about warding off SARS by eating greens before 12 AM that night. And after it gave it's message, the infant died. How can you explain something as supernatural as that? (And it did happen, it was front page news)

But yet, how can there an omnipotent ruler like God who could see all and know all? That is just obscure and impossible (hope i used that word right). If there is a God who loves his people so much, why is crime increasing in this world? And if human-life was created by God why does research show that we may have evolved from the prime-ape family such as the rangatang (i can't spell the ape's name but u know what i mean. I hope). Besides, scientists believe that the first forms of life was cyannobacteria, which then later evolved into more complex life forms. See that?

(This reply is so long...) [zz)]

 

[TENYEARS]

Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed. Your choices and band wagon jumping will destroy the planet. When you wail and nothing happens. Tough. Eat of your self consoling beliefs then. When the oceans turn to sludge, and the skys darken will you remember. I doubt it. Unconciousness is born to repeat itself. It is not be nature of what we are but of now we use that which we are made the will change this life or not.

You take your 400 1000 1,000,000 scientists. They are less than nothing to me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed. Your choices and band wagon jumping will destroy the planet. When you wail and nothing happens. Tough. Eat of your self consoling beliefs then. When the oceans turn to sludge, and the skys darken will you remember. I doubt it. Unconciousness is born to repeat itself. It is not be nature of what we are but of now we use that which we are made the will change this life or not.

You take your 400 1000 1,000,000 scientists. They are less than nothing to me.

Uh huh...I'll take facts over fantasy, anyday.

 

[TENYEARS]

See now you are lying to me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
See now you are lying to me.

Nope, try again, this time without eating the magic mushrooms, ok?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by New-Prototype
I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but religion is a sham! I believe that these thoughts and beliefs were only created so the people in the church can make money.

While your beliefs are your own, you use the term religion as if it is the same as theistic or having/worshiping a deity. This is not the case.

You you believe that religion was created for people to make money then perhaps you should study a little anthropology. Primative peoples had religions before he had money. This neither increases nor decreases the probability that (a) religion is correct, but it does poke a hole in the profit as the motive for religion creation belief.

 

[FZ+]

Good post radagast.

Yes, to label religion or irrational beliefs are money making shams is a gross oversimplification of the scenario. While it can be demonstrably true for certain beliefs (scientology ring a bell?), it can't be laid on as a blanket statement. To deny the genuine belief of the majority is a fruitless route to take.

New-prototype: While I agree that belief is something that is almost instinctive in man, I would put caution on the idea of disproving god. While science can shatter the conclusions of much of religion when it comes to what can be observed, it is often impossible to disprove any god from a spiritualist/metaphorical direction. The only conclusion that can be made is that the lack of evidence means there is no basis for belief in god.

Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed.

Here we go again. You puzzle me TENYEARS. If you only express such contempt for other people who attempt to look for the facts, and have such stubborn and irrational faith in your own ideas, while do you butt in like this at all? Why do you post, if you already proclaim that however many scientific proofs, and error checking and nothing to you? Why, while you reject the scientific method and the progressive, open thinking it stands for, do you pretend to be open minded? How, when you do not even appear to understand what science means, can you even criticise?
There may be hope for you yet.

(BTW, where's that prediction you said you were going to send me?)

 

[Iacchus32]

God (which is good) + greed (human ambition) = charlatan. This is the problem right here ... for "Many will come in my name to lead many astray."

Indeed it is much better to pose it as an open question and leave it at that -- thereby creating "a vacuum" -- than to play Russian Roulette with a potentially loaded weapon. I believe TENYEARS said something to this effect in another thread.

While we all know how Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed, therefore if we learn how to pose the question, while holding our ground, and remaining humble and sincere (this is very important too), the answer should be forthcoming.

But we must understand, this is a means by which to address the question "internally." However, there may be a means by which Science can address this in an "external sense" as well? Perhaps by learning how to be "intuitive" and applying that to our experiments?

 

[TENYEARS]

You know I don't reject science, science is in accordance with the truth the only problem is science is not completely understood. I could do the gravity thing here, but not. If you knew what I know you would know why I have such great disdain for many so called scientists. I will send you what I promised - my gut feeling said not to send it then.

 

[Zero]

God (which is fictional) + greed (human ambition) = Christian. This is the problem right here ... for "Many will quote the Bible, as though it were anything other than fiction"

Indeed it is much better to pretend to be deep, and stick with fables, than to play Russian Roulette with actual facts, since most of them make a religious viewpoint seem foolish.

While we all know how Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed, therefore if we learn how to pose the question, while holding our ground, and remain as obscure as possible, no one will be able to disprove our fantasies.

But we must understand, this is a means by which to address the question "internally." By 'Internally', we mean "in a way that makes no logical sense", therefore it cannot ever be disproven.

 

[Iacchus32]

What are you afraid someone might actually believe what I have to say? Pretty well put don't you think?

Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining as obscure as possible?" Do you mean that Science shouldn't begin to explore the possibilities of intuition? And yet it's a well known fact that it exists.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are you afraid someone might actually believe what I have to say? Pretty well put don't you think?

Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining as obscure as possible?" Do you mean that Science shouldn't begin to explore the possibilities of intuition? And yet it's a well known fact that it exists.

LOL, you don't present anything for us to actually believe in, so I have no fear at all!

"Intuition" exists...as a function of a bioelectric and biochemical process of the brain. It isn't magic, it is simply a way that the subconscious processes existing information in interesting ways.

 

[TENYEARS]

Zero, where exactly did you get that the good morning coffee club knowledge of the day. Is this a thought you brought into being yourself?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
You know I don't reject science, science is in accordance with the truth the only problem is science is not completely understood.

Science is pretty well understood, it's what science studies that is not always well understood. If it was, then we would understand all there is to know about objective reality.

I could do the gravity thing here, but not. If you knew what I know you would know why I have such great disdain for many so called scientists. I will send you what I promised - my gut feeling said not to send it then.

I can't help but get the feel you are dancing around a 'God of the Gaps' argument. Yes, a number of things are not known, but to somehow use god to explain this is a serious violation of Occams razor.

The neat thing about science, is that no matter how you feel about a given scientist and what they have to say, over the long run, the system (science) is self-correcting.

If you are speaking of what a scientist has to say about god (specifically say christian, but not a fundamentalist view) then they are outside the area of science, therefore not an authority (by virtue of scientific training). Science can only address things which falsifiable predictions can be made. For example, the (current) Catholic view of god is outside the domain of science because there are no testable and falsifiable predications about him/her that can me made.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, you don't present anything for us to actually believe in, so I have no fear at all!

"Intuition" exists...as a function of a bioelectric and biochemical process of the brain. It isn't magic, it is simply a way that the subconscious processes existing information in interesting ways.

Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless.

Why is rational explanation 'not logical'?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Zero, where exactly did you get that the good morning coffee club knowledge of the day. Is this a thought you brought into being yourself?

What does that mean? 'brought into being myself'? All thoughts are our own, and all thoughts are a function of the influences we are exposed to. I take only partial credit.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless.

Bold statement, but just that until you can back it up.

Though the following isn't specific to you, Iacchus32, it has amazed me how many flat statements are made here with absolutely no justification. If something is given as an explanation of something they believe, I can see that. But to, in effect, simply say 'your wrong' with zero justification, smacks of forums a lot less prestigious than a physics forum.

As a fan of informal logic and argumentation I saw nothing that violated any rules of inference. Perhaps you could enlighten us further. Now that I think about it, there was no 'argument' presented, so no possibility of violating rules of inference, so exactly how could it be illogical? Wrong, quite possibly, but illogical?.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
As a fan of informal logic and argumentation I saw nothing that violated any rules of inference. Perhaps you could enlighten us further. Now that I think about it, there was no 'argument' presented, so no possibility of violating rules of inference, so exactly how could it be illogical? Wrong, quite possibly, but illogical?.

I only say this because I think this is how Zero -- being the "logical" person that he is -- "feels" about intuition. It works from the "other side" of the brain, therefore he can't claim that it's logical. But "interesting" nonetheless.

Oh, and please feel free to drop by my thread on What is Irrational?