A conundrum

[DJSupreme23]

Ardena: " A good place to start once your question is genuine is to read Bhagavad Gita. "

Ow, come on, not that hateful twist of the Veda's

Jan, are you Hare Krishna?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=

God is a possibility as any objective Scientist should admit but very^9999999 unlikely...because there is abundant evidence to the contrary...

Only because the evidence produced does not fit into a certain paradigm, or it invalidates the current theory, apart from that there is no real evidence to suggest that the universe wasn't created by intelligence, therefore a creator. Our differences are therefore personal which means we choose to believe what we believe through our own personal understanding.

A Believer hasnt this profound luxury...though he is arrogant enough as to claim that he knows the purpose of the cosmos, life & everything else without doubt...

Why only claim to know? How do you know they don't know? Are you so arrogant that you think you know everything, including what other people know or don't know?

Give it up Jan....the Earth aint flat...

Give it up=SputniK-CL=....the universe didn't come from nothing....

& Jan, what makes you so 100 % certain of your "facts"??? (I can admit I am wrong <sufficient proof needed mind you, [I wanna just slap ya Jan]>, can you?!!) LOL

What facts are these?

Science Rules!!!

In its domain, i perfectly agree.

PS. Read this !!!, my favourite page, full of those juicy "examples" - YOU WILL FIND SCIENTISTS ARE NOT FANATICS!!! GRRRRRRRRRR

Don't be so touchy, i did not say that a requirment to becoming a scientist was to be a fanatic. There are great scientists, both theist and atheist.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by DJSupreme23

Ow, come on, not that hateful twist of the Veda's

Explanation?

Jan, are you Hare Krishna?

In some ways, yes.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Sorry, gonna have to be touchy again...

"Only because the evidence produced does not fit into a certain paradigm, or it invalidates the current theory, apart from that there is no real evidence to suggest that the universe wasn't created by intelligence, therefore a creator. Our differences are therefore personal which means we choose to believe what we believe through our own personal understanding. "

Well, please go read my previous post again (especially the blue cheese part) - faith is blind, reason is not, therefore religion cannot have theories and 50/50 conundrums...
Dont you see damnit?! Assuming you believe in God, I ask you to explain where your absolute conviction comes from.

"Why only claim to know? How do you know they don't know? Are you so arrogant that you think you know everything, including what other people know or don't know?"

Please dont take offense, but to keep myself sane, I must congratulate you on bieng a stupendous manipulator. The answer is obviously no, but isnt the question relevant to religion? There in lies the tragedy...I can say no, you cant! Anyway, let me ask you this: does not faith imply that you consider your belief the only truth?

"Give it up=SputniK-CL=....the universe didn't come from nothing.... "

Sorry, I got to cringe here for it seems you do not understand at all. AS MENTIONED BEFORE: i do not claim to know anything or everything but ignorance does not justify a supreme bieng, wich seems to be the basis of your argument here...PLEASE ANSWER THIS: why does not knowing imply God? Please use logic when answering...

"What facts are these? "

Well, I was assuming...please correct me then - you believe in the supposed "facts" of religion?

"In its domain, i perfectly agree."

May I remind you what science is? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, WHATEVER IT MAY BE." I think is safe to say the domain of science encompasses ALL!!!

"Don't be so touchy, i did not say that a requirment to becoming a scientist was to be a fanatic. There are great scientists, both theist and atheist. "

Point 1: it can be safely said that the majority of scientists are atheists or agnostic.
Point 2: I was implying, very stereotypically, that to be a believer you have to be fanatical, in other words, freaking nuts!!

Thanks for your love...

 

[Canute]

Haven't tried 'religion' before but here goes.

Science has not yet hypothesised a single logically sensible explanation for existence yet. Maybe it will any day now but we've all been waiting a long time. Until then aggressive atheists should watch their step IMO. There may be some surprises in store.

It was suggested above that reason is somehow superior to faith. This is nonsense - try some Popper or Kant. There would be no science (in its current dogmatically physicalist form) without blind faith in the unprovable axioms of science.

Why anyone would argue that science has any opinion at all on God is a mystery to me. It's clearly not a scientific concept. Science doesn't even accept the existence of consciousness as more than mechanical self-reference, how can someone then start spouting authoritatively on God on the basis of some half-finished scientific model? I don't think many good scientists make that mistake and I can't see why those here should be any more confident.

I would tentatively argue from Goedel (I know - yawn) that we know:

1)Knowledge which depends of proofs depends on a blind faith in ones axioms and is subject to inevitable incompleteness/ inconsistency.

2)'Knowing' does not necessarily depend on either faith or proof.

3)Accepting a single unprovable axiom (eg God exists) allows one to be forever rational from then on, as ones thinking can be completely consistent in all other respects.

I don't like the term 'God' but would argue strongly that there is a 'thing in the gaps'. I think (Q) suggested that the gaps are shrinking. Actually they are simply becoming better defined and more obvious as the strictly physicalist scientific view paints itself into a corner.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

I like your post Canute...

You are right, Science has dominion over what it knows, no further...

You are wrong, reason is superior to faith, and showing that faith led to science does not freakin contradict this!!!

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
You are wrong, reason is superior to faith, and showing that faith led to science does not freakin contradict this!!!

Who says faith and reason are opposites? Or even incompatible? I can't see how you can have one without the other - whichever way around you put them.

 

[DJSupreme23]

Many scientists over the centuries have in some degree been religious.

Religion and science is not incompataible.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Faith inspires, reason enforces...

Maybe they go together but I would rather put my faith in reason...

 

[(Q)]

Many scientists over the centuries have in some degree been religious.

Religion and science is not incompataible.

Your logic does not follow. Perhaps scientists are compatible with religion, but science is not compatible with religion.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by (Q) I agree.

... science is not compatible with religion.

Why?

 

[(Q)]

There is the truth of science, which employs the methods of scientific inquiry, testing claims empirically, rationally, and experimentally; and there is the truth of religion, that which transcends the categories of empirical fact and logic.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by (Q)
There is the truth of science, which employs the methods of scientific inquiry, testing claims empirically, rationally, and experimentally; and there is the truth of religion, that which transcends the categories of empirical fact and logic.

Perhaps, but, were that true, it would not be accurate to assert (as you did) that science and religion are incompatible. It's a bit like claiming that Algebra and Chicken Soup are incompatible because one employs math and the other matzah.

 

[(Q)]

It's a bit like claiming that Algebra and Chicken Soup are incompatible because one employs math and the other matzah.

Huh? How is it that you see an apples/oranges conflict in that one truth incorporates empirical fact and logic and the other truth transcends empirical fact and logic?

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

"were that true, it would not be accurate to assert (as you did) that science and religion are incompatible. It's a bit like claiming that Algebra and Chicken Soup are incompatible because one employs math and the other matzah."

Forgive me, I do not follow...
You perhaps mean the truth justifies the means? or...

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." Religion implies a single truth...how do you wish to make it compatible with Science?

By definition science and religion are incompatible as demonstrated by Q.
You argue with this?

There is a difference between science and religion being compatible and them co-existing. The 2 co-existing simply means people choose to subscribe to both realms not that they have anything in common.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=

Well, please go read my previous post again (especially the blue cheese part)

No thanks, it's a tad silly. I'll just wait and see if you can post something a bit more mature.

- faith is blind, reason is not, [/quote]

Don't be silly man, faith is not blind, faith is based on reason. What you are most probably talking about is blind-faith, where the person doesn't understand or care why they have faith, but that is the person, not faith.
Reason is not blind? That’s a weird statement, what do you mean?

Dont you see damnit?! Assuming you believe in God, I ask you to explain where your absolute conviction comes from.

I don’t recall saying I have absolute conviction, which simply shows you have preconceived ideas as to what faith is. There may be some people who have absolute conviction, so you would have to ask them.

but isnt the question relevant to religion?

It depends what “you” term religion, but as I understand religion, the question is not relevant.

There in lies the tragedy...I can say no, you cant!

Say no to what?

Anyway, let me ask you this: does not faith imply that you consider your belief the only truth?/quote]
No.

AS MENTIONED BEFORE: i do not claim to know anything or everything

Neither do I.
What's your point?

but ignorance does not justify a supreme bieng, wich seems to be the basis of your argument here...

Who said it is? Certainly not me.
I think my argument confuses you terribly as it is obvious your only intention is to defeat me, regardless of what it is I’m saying, which is evident in your rash assumptions and misunderstanding of the words “faith and reason.”

PLEASE ANSWER THIS: why does not knowing imply God? Please use logic when answering...

If you ask me a question, I will answer how I see fit.
Now, as far as i know, this question does not apply to me, so why exactly have you asked me this question?

Well, I was assuming...please correct me then - you believe in the supposed "facts" of religion?

I don’t know of any supposed facts of religion, please enlighten me as to what they are.

May I remind you what science is? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, WHATEVER IT MAY BE." I think is safe to say the domain of science encompasses ALL!!!

That is your opinion, a very poor one if I may say so, which is not based on logic or reason, but fanatical emotion. My answer was both logical and reasonable, “science rules in its domain.”

Point 1: it can be safely said that the majority of scientists are atheists or agnostic.

What? Is there some kind of poll which contacts every scientist in the world, all the time. Or is that just taken from a few scientists to form a percentage?
What do you mean by “majority.”
And why can you “safely say it.”

Point 2: I was implying, very stereotypically, that to be a believer you have to be fanatical, in other words, freaking nuts!!

So everybody who believes in God is fanatical and crazy, in your opinion?

Thanks for your love...

Your most welcome.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Canute]

Jan makes a good point - faith can be rational or irrational, it comes in all shapes and sizes, as do religions and Gods. It seems that from Sputnik's perspective faith and religion seem irrational - but that is only the projection of an irrational idea of faith and religion. There are perfectly rational versions.

The idea that "I think is safe to say the domain of science encompasses ALL!!!" is just about as unsafe as it could be. The evidence is all to the contrary.

As Physicist Frank Close says "Where did it all come from? You may well ask. I don't know and nor, in my opinion, does any scientist... Questions concerning existence 'before' this singular happening are wracked with philosophical debate as to whether they are even meaningful..." ('Lucifer's Legacy') (I take him to mean 'scientifically meaningful' here).

Once science has overcome the philosophical (ie logical) problems of explaining existence then perhaps non-scientists will take science more seriously as being 'all-encompassing'. When it has actually proved that it's right then we can stop having this disagreement.

However I'm not holding my breath. Speaking very rationally and without a glimmer of faith in anything in particular I don't believe it can ever be done by science.

In fact I'd bet anything you like on it, since it seems to me to be in principle impossible on logical grounds for there to be a scientific explanation of how we came to be here. Part of the evidence being that nobody has suggested one yet.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Don't be silly man, faith is not blind, faith is based on reason.

Outside of a religious context the term faith is usually synonymous with inductive reasoning. I.e. there is usually some factual basis behind most statements that include the term faith. Although there are some experiences that do include blind faith, e.g. I have faith that I won’t die if I jump off a 50 storey building, or I have faith that I will never have an accident when I drive a car, or I have faith that not eating peanut-butter will make me more intelligent. IOW blind faith is not based on any facts that show the beliefs have any truth, and in many cases such as here there is often evidence to the contrary.

We see a departure from that approach in religious faith where a belief cannot be based on facts, i.e. no one has established any facts that show that gods or spirits actually exist. Blind faith refers to a belief where facts are absent. Hence religious faith = blind faith.

Strictly speaking if faith were based on reason, as you claim, then it would no longer be faith but would be reason. But religionists can never refer to their belief as being based on reason since they have no facts and it is this essential truth that reveals that religious beliefs are based on blind faith.

However, many religionists are uncomfortable being seen to believe something that is outside of reason (i.e. unreasonable and irrational). And they fight hard to try and claim that faith is indeed based on reason, or that believing on faith is some kind of special way to discover truth. These are just desperate attempts to avoid being seen as deluded or gullible.

What you are most probably talking about is blind-faith, where the person doesn't understand or care why they have faith, but that is the person, not faith.

Gibberish.

 

[Cris]

Canute,

faith can be rational or irrational, it comes in all shapes and sizes, as do religions and Gods.

OK but religious faith is the shape and size that is irrational.

It seems that from Sputnik's perspective faith and religion seem irrational - but that is only the projection of an irrational idea of faith and religion. There are perfectly rational versions.

Yes but none involve religion. Religious belief is always irrational since it is based on the type of faith that doesn’t include reason.

As Physicist Frank Close says "Where did it all come from? You may well ask. I don't know and nor, in my opinion, does any scientist...

Perhaps, but try abiogenesis, and the physics of Linde, Hawking, etc., first as a start on how to begin.

Questions concerning existence 'before' this singular happening

What singular happening are you talking about?

are wracked with philosophical debate as to whether they are even meaningful..." ('Lucifer's Legacy') (I take him to mean 'scientifically meaningful' here).

The irrational part of course comes when anyone says they do know where it all came from, i.e. religions.

Once science has overcome the philosophical (ie logical) problems of explaining existence then perhaps non-scientists will take science more seriously as being 'all-encompassing'. When it has actually proved that it's right then we can stop having this disagreement.

No, this is gross misunderstanding of the role of science. Science is a process or set of processes for discovering knowledge. Science has never claimed that it knows everything or will ever know everything. Science doesn’t care about philosophical issues. Science is incapable of caring about anything or can have any opinions on the matter.

However I'm not holding my breath. Speaking very rationally and without a glimmer of faith in anything in particular I don't believe it can ever be done by science.

Are you therefore suggesting that religion has a superior mechanism for determining knowledge, and if so, how?

In fact I'd bet anything you like on it, since it seems to me to be in principle impossible on logical grounds for there to be a scientific explanation of how we came to be here. Part of the evidence being that nobody has suggested one yet.

Try abiogenesis, and the physics of Linde, Hawking, etc.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

I must admit I have misunderstood you on a few issues and hope you will admit that you havent made it very clear to me what you views are.

"No thanks, it's a tad silly. I'll just wait and see if you can post something a bit more mature. "

Basic maybe, not silly. If you do not agree please for the sake of the thread elaborate.

"..faith is based on reason.."

I am without words. You honestly expect that phrase to stand up in a Science Forum? Wow, I had no idea you were that warped. I implore you to explain to me how faith is based on reason, for the sake of the argument. NOTE: reason as in logic as in rational thinking.

"...is blind-faith, where the person doesn't understand or care why they have faith, but that is the person, not faith. "

You will be the end of me!!! Clearly you should get your definitions right. The entire statement is fabricated out of desperation. My dictionary sais: Faith is founded on authority ; apart from proof. Your definition please so I may ammend? (Sarcastic Snicker) The attitude of the given person towards his faith (how wierdly you put it) does not change that he has faith and that it is blind. Enuff said.

"That’s a weird statement, what do you mean? "

I mean, very obviously, that using logic you must rely on reasons and proofs for your conclusion, thus reason is not blind. Definitions!

"I don’t recall saying I have absolute conviction, which simply shows you have preconceived ideas as to what faith is. There may be some people who have absolute conviction, so you would have to ask them. "

Definitions again. The idea is if a person sais he/she has faith in x then he believes absolutely, never mind proof. Enlighten me, please.

"It depends what “you” term religion, but as I understand religion, the question is not relevant. "

Therefore you undestand incorrectly. If you refuse to give me your idea of religion, ill be blunt. You clearly consider youself outside mainstream religion. Wich is fine by me because whilst I cannot attack you, I have massacred conventional religoin.

"Say no to what? "

As I have explained to the best of my abilities, the concepts of religion and faith undermines itself when it admits a chance of bieng wrong. If I ask my Preacher if there is the smallest chance that he may be wrong, he will say no because he has faith in his conviction.

"Neither do I.
What's your point? "

You cannot grasp my point? Well, nothing I can do. Just have faith in it, okay?

"Who said it is? Certainly not me.
I think my argument confuses you terribly as it is obvious your only intention is to defeat me, regardless of what it is I’m saying, which is evident in your rash assumptions and misunderstanding of the words “faith and reason.” "

You are right to a degree, I apologize.
When you said "the universe didn't come from nothing" you were meaning what?


"I don’t know of any supposed facts of religion, please enlighten me as to what they are"

Hopeless. "Facts" of religion are what are believed, like there is a God. Geeze, this is tiring.

"That is your opinion, a very poor one if I may say so, which is not based on logic or reason, but fanatical emotion. My answer was both logical and reasonable, “science rules in its domain.” "

*Gulps, takes a gun and blows his brains out* Fine. Lets agree to disagree. I can be certain however that your motivation is much more emotional than mine. I have surmised this from the beginning since you refuse to face facts.

"What? Is there some kind of poll which contacts every scientist in the world, all the time. Or is that just taken from a few scientists to form a percentage?
What do you mean by “majority.”
And why can you “safely say it.” "

Its called statistics, and yes, there were numerous surveys held at the Academy of Sciences in the USA and elsewhere. Scientific American, New Scientist, Science Journals of all sorts shows this fact. You actually doubt this. Go read some. I fear you will fanatically deny anything I throw at you.

"So everybody who believes in God is fanatical and crazy, in your opinion?"

Spot on.

Someone please help me. Jan, it seems, is beyond logic!!!