Knowledge vs Faith

[5th Element]

Originally posted by Xevious
Well, let's see, was it this response to BrainwithaGun which did it? I think so... their was the post by LucidDreamer:



Your posted response to BrainWithaGun reveals your beliefs. You basically called a theologic believer an idiot because he believed in religion. THUS, you stated religion was false, and THUS God did not exist. You implied the claim that God does not exist.

So you want me to prove to you in a empirical nature God exists... this depends only upon what kind of evidence you will be willing to look at. The proof is out their, but when one is unwilling to look, one will never see. This was a problem I for a long time had with Darwinism. I was so unwilling to even LOOK at the evidence for it that I never understood... until I cleared my head and thought about it. Even today I don't entirely embrace Evolution, but at least look at it and say as Abraham Lincoln did, "I can see how one can look at the ground and say that all was the work of nature. But, I cannot see how one can look at the sky and say their is no God."

The reason I cannot come to any more meaningful debate with those here is many of those present are so zealous against religion that their is simply no reasoning to be found.

Sometimes it's just a table. sometimes it's just chair, sometimes it's simply nothing.

The biggest difference between science and religion isn't simply their answers, but rather the process in which something is considered fact. Even if something makes logical sense to you, (in your case "god") it is still just "your logic", it is not yet fact. What seperates something from your theory and fact is one key element; Evidence, either in support of or not.

<p>
You're right, there is no reasoning to be found. As your reasoning alone is not sufficient "evidence" to support your Monotheistic theory.

I never said god doesn't exist. But in order for you to convince me or anyone with a brain that "god" exist, it may take more than biblical stories and "reasoning".

Do you think I have not studied the bible before? I attended catholic highschool. Of course I got kicked out for having "too many questions" but that besides the point. You know the part in the bible where god said let there be light and in sudden flash, there was light? Well I could easily call that the big bang. Make that connection and all of the sudden the bible seems to make even scientific sense. But see, I don't do that, because that's not enough. Do you think I don't entertain the idea of a god? I certainly do, and unlike some, we scientists are able to entertain thoughts without having to believe. therefore allowing objectivity.
It's because of this objectivity that has allowed me to conclude this: In order for something to be considered fact, it must exist. existence needs to be proven and supported. otherwise it shall be considered, non-existence. However, that need not to be said. as non-existence is the default, not existence.

<p>
Science is based on understanding. Those who seek this path become scientists. It is the path that I've chosen, perhaps you can just believe me when i say this if not understand.

Christianity is based on faith. "The christian faith" as they call it is simply just that, faith. So I repeat, Sometimes it's just a table. sometimes it's just chair, sometimes it's simply nothing.

Perhaps you may consider me false in my logic, always demanding proof of a claim, not being able to see what's beyond nothing when the eye meets nothing. However, rather I do that, then create something out of nothing in my own mind and consider it fact. There's a thin line between sanity and insanity. A true mark of insanity is a mind which alters reality to fit it's perception of the ideal. Not being able to accept reality as reality in this mind have been altered to the point of no return. No medicine. No hope.

 

[rayzinnz]

religon states there is purpose to existence and therefore everything that happens is in line with this purpose and is under more control of the future than the present or past.
Future events are known

science on the other hand explains the mechanisms of how an unexisting future is made and how they act on the present (which is made from the past).
Future events can only be predicted and calculated but not known

I think the philosiphy behind this will be more clear but can't remember how its worded.

if you have religon you really don't need science as far as I can see.

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by rayzinnz
religon states there is purpose to existence and therefore everything that happens is in line with this purpose and is under more control of the future than the present or past.
Future events are known

science on the other hand explains the mechanisms of how an unexisting future is made and how they act on the present (which is made from the past).
Future events can only be predicted and calculated but not known

I think the philosiphy behind this will be more clear but can't remember how its worded.

if you have religon you really don't need science as far as I can see.

It all depends on how concerned you are that your predictions about future events be correct.

 

[Xevious]

I want to give a big applause both to 5th Element and rayzinnz for good responses. I want to offer one point though to 5th Element.

Suppose I said that I can verify much of the Bible with archaeology. This is not a false statement, as many things the Bible describes are found in archaeology just as they described and often with remarkable accuracy. Then, if I propose that what is in the bible that CAN be tested is proven to be true, then what is the probability that the parts that cannot be tested are true?

This is where I no doubt ask for the "leap of faith" but then again, such leaps are taken in science all the time - We predict

A, B, C, and D... we find so far, A, C, and D, so their is a very good chance that B is present, but not directly obserable so far. Would this form or reasoning seem rational to you?

 

[Nasor]

This seems akin to saying that we should believe everything we see on television because a great deal of what we see on television is verifiably true.

If I see something mundane and ordinary on television – like a dog – then it's likely that the dog actually exists. On the other hand, if I were to see a dragon on television I would be far more skeptical. The Bible is very similar. If it presents some piece of information – like the location of an ancient city – then it's reasonable to believe that the Bible might be correct about it. This does not, of course, mean that the Bible is also correct about the more fantastical things.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Abdiel
I have always felt there was an art to this world and if there is art there must be an artist.

I'd say the artist is YOU. You lend beauty to an object or condition. The object or condition simply IS, as it is only an object or condition.

 

[Xevious]

That might be so, but you must conceed Science functions this way as well to an extent. Basically - what you can see and verify means that what you think happened or is happening is true.

Darwinism works this way. Darwin asks you to believe on FAITH that all species evolve into another - you cannot direclty observe the transmutation of a species, but it says you CAN see the effects of this transmutation - essentialy, you didn't see it happen but you can see what was left afterwards. If A, B, C, and D happened and you can find A, C, and D, then B is very likely to be correct.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Xevious
That might be so, but you must conceed Science functions this way as well to an extent.

All knowledge is that way man. All of it. (except for like knowledge like "I'm hungry" or "I'm horny" and the likes)

Originally posted by Xevious

Basically - what you can see and verify means that what you think happened or is happening is true.

I would say that it means that what I thought was happening seems to be a good approximation of objective reality... with the full knowledge that it's impossible to ever perfectly describe objective reality.

Originally posted by Xevious
Darwinism works this way. Darwin asks you to believe on FAITH that all species evolve into another - you cannot direclty observe the transmutation of a species, but it says you CAN see the effects of this transmutation - essentialy, you didn't see it happen but you can see what was left afterwards.

The only "faith" required to believe darwinism is in "reason". If you believe that reason leads to valid knowledge then no faith is required to believe darwinism. It makes sense and is supported by objective evidence.

Originally posted by Xevious

If A, B, C, and D happened and you can find A, C, and D, then B is very likely to be correct.

That's called reasoning. Is that deduction or inference? I suppose it depends on the details.

 

[Halcyon]

Originally posted by rayzinnz
if you have religon you really don't need science as far as I can see.

Because religion sufficiently demonstrates and explains the laws of physics, right? Sorry if I seem snide, I may have just misinterpreted your statement(And if I have, please correct me), but it seems that even though a person has faith, they still need to understand the basic elements of acceleration and decelleration, as well as thousands of other fundamental elements present in our daily lives that we attribute our understanding of to science and it's discoveries.

 

[Xevious]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein had a very good point with reguards to Religion and Science. While he rejected the biblical idea of God, he did state that Science has no reason to exist and no moral guidance without some kind of religion supplementing the beliefs of the observer. Without religion, their is no frame of reference to place what science finds in any form of philosophical or moral context. This is why Intelligent Design is still very hotly debated, and why many scientists including Stephen Hawking, believe in God.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Xevious
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

A sign of the times for sure. It's funny how while defending it he assisted to condemn it.

Originally posted by Xevious

Without religion, their is no frame of reference to place what science finds in any form of philosophical or moral context.

That's simply bullshit.

Originally posted by Xevious

This is why Intelligent Design is still very hotly debated

Intelligent design is retarded. I've yet to hear a reasonable argument defending it. It is hotly debated generally by those who can't get over the "first cause" problem. IMO, that's merely a sign of ignorance. "first cause" makes no sense without time. Time started about 15 Billion years ago. How could something have 'caused' that? Ah sweet paradox. The best argument to date is: The universe exists because it can. Apparently there is "that which is possible" and the universe is, and it did.

Originally posted by Xevious

and why many scientists including Stephen Hawking, believe in God.

I ponder if many scientists do so from pure reason, or from the same emotional need that most theists indulge. Maybe it's politics.

 

[Xevious]

I don't think you ever read "A Brief History of Time". Stephen Hawking believes in God because he believes that some kind of deity intelligently designed the physical laws of our universe. This is the entire crux of Intelligent Design, and it is simply something you choose to ignore. It is not a point of science at all, but neither is the belief that the universe came because it can. One person sees a universe based on physical laws that exist simply because it can. One person sees a universe based on an intelligently designed system. Neither of these arguments are in the end, PROVEABLE.

How could something have 'caused' that? Ah sweet paradox. The best argument to date is: The universe exists because it can. Apparently there is "that which is possible" and the universe is, and it did.

This is a strange argument to make, considered that science demands that a mechanism is required for everything to happen. "Because it can" is purely a subjective belief, based not on any kind of logical scientic reasoning, but a decision of personal philosophy. This is where your beliefs show to have the same form of "faith" that a religious person bears. You can talk all you want of how "logical" your unproven and unconfirmable opinion is, but in the end you are trapped in the same paradox I am.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Xevious
I don't think you ever read "A Brief History of Time". Stephen Hawking believes in God because he believes that some kind of deity intelligently designed the physical laws of our universe.

Yes I did, and I only remember something to that effect in the preface.. not the meat of the book. It has been a long long time though since I read it.

Regardless, arguing that you have an advantage because you think other smart people believe the same thing you do is kind of uhm.. unreasonable. I'll address a specific example if you'd like.

Originally posted by Xevious

This is the entire crux of Intelligent Design, and it is simply something you choose to ignore.

I ignore it because I think it's a stupid argument. You simply don't understand where I'm coming from. I went over this in some thread in pretty good detail. I didn't see anyone able to refute it. If I can find it I'll post a link.

Originally posted by Xevious

It is not a point of science at all, but neither is the belief that the universe came because it can.

You're incorrect. Statistics is a mathematical discipline (as such is scientific). My hypothesis is based in the fundies of statistics.

Originally posted by Xevious

One person sees a universe based on physical laws that exist simply because it can.

I believe the laws of the universe happened as a resultant of the process of the big bang. I've read much to support this but can't think of a particular to point you to.

Originally posted by Xevious

Neither of these arguments are in the end, PROVEABLE.

Certainly, but to me the tendencies of humans to personify (as they MUST) everything, or relate it to their own comprehension and experience.. leaves me with a poor impression of all arguments regarding "intelligent design". Seems to me that everythign is "emergant properties" and the stastistical hypothesis I mentioned is the best possible answer given a limited comprehension of stuff that can't possibly make sense to a human (like existance of anything outside of time).

Originally posted by Xevious

This is a strange argument to make, considered that science demands that a mechanism is required for everything to happen. "Because it can" is purely a subjective belief, based not on any kind of logical scientic reasoning, but a decision of personal philosophy.

It's not a belief, it's a hypothesis. It's IS based on scientific reasoning as I mentioned above.

Originally posted by Xevious

This is where your beliefs show to have the same form of "faith" that a religious person bears.

I have absolute faith in reason.

Originally posted by Xevious
You can talk all you want of how "logical" your unproven and unconfirmable opinion is, but in the end you are trapped in the same paradox I am.

You mean that there is no answer? Yes. I only think there is a "current reasonable perspective" and I've expressed it.

 

[Ares]

"god has created the universe, because something had to create the universe."

There are some problems with the first cause argument. Here are some outlined from the Freethought zone site:


"First Cause and Cosmological Arguments

The first cause argument states "Everything has a cause and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have been something to start off this chain of events, and that something is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists, namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say that the universe itself is uncaused than to postulate the existence of God and say that God is uncaused. After all, we know that the universe exists.

A recently popularized variant of the First Cause Argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that every thing that begins to exist must be caused, and since the universe began to exist, it must have been caused and that cause was God. This argument is a slight improvement on the traditional First Cause Argument since its conclusion does not contradict its premises, but it still fails because, as shown below, there is no reason to think that the universe has not existed, in some form, forever. Another serious problem with the argument is that the very notion of the universe beginning to exist is incoherent. If something begins to exhibit some property, there is a time in which the property is partially exhibited. But it makes no sense to say that the universe ever partially existed. Perhaps what theists mean when they say that the universe began to exist is that there was some time when the universe did not exist and then some later time when it did exist. But, according to classical general relativity, this is not what actually happened and there is no indication that quantum gravity will change this conclusion. In the classical big bang picture of cosmology there was never a time in which the universe did not exist, so there is no coherent notion of "before the big bang". This is because in general relativity time is a part of space-time and the big bang is a space-time singularity, not a singularity in space that occurred at some instant in time.

Both the First Cause Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument attempt to show that there was an external cause to the big bang, and they both fail. But even if there was a sound argument showing that the big bang had an external cause, this would in no way point to the existence of a supernatural, conscious being. This is because there would be no reason to believe that there could be no natural explanations for such an external cause, and natural explanations will always be superior to "God did it", which has no explanatory power.

It is quite possible that the universe has existed, in some form, forever. Our current understanding of cosmology is based on classical general relativity, which breaks down for times earlier than the Planck time of 10-43 seconds. Until we have a fully worked out theory of quantum gravity, we can only speculate on what happened before the Planck time. One possibility is that our universe is a quantum fluctuation in some "meta-universe" that has existed for all time. Lets compare this hypothesis with the hypothesis that God created the universe. Both scenarios postulate the existence of something outside of what we normally think of as our universe. One scenario postulates the existence of an extremely complex conscious entity, while the other only postulates some space in which quantum fluctuations can occur. Even if the two scenarios had equal explanatory power, we would have to say that the natural hypothesis is much more likely to be correct than the supernatural hypothesis, since the natural hypothesis is much simpler. Moreover, as we have already noted, "God did it" is not really an explanation at all, since it doesn't describe anything in terms of something that we already understand. The quantum fluctuation scenario, while speculative, can potentially provide an explanation, since we do have an understanding of quantum fluctuations. Since the natural scenario has more explanatory power and is much simpler than the "God did it" scenario, we should apply Ockham's Razor and reject "God did it" as non-parsimonious. "

In my view the first cause argument sounds like a plea from ignorance; because theoretical physics hasn't yet explained the origin of the universe, we need to invoke God like some cosmic magician to get things going.

 

[Ares]

"This would have taken too much time. It took only 3-4 million years for life to show up. It would take around 12 million years to get the correct sequences. Life on Earth simply did not have enough time to occur at random. Indeed, some scientists have begun to speculate that life might be a natural and normal process which will always occur given the right conditions - essentially that their is no randomness to it.

In either event, wether you believe in God or not, at the very least I feel that their is no way that a system like this is created entirely by chance."

Neither of these arguments wash since the Earth is old enough for life to have evolved to its present complexity (it is known to be about 4.5 GY old) and evolution is not a process governed purely by chance. A good run-down is given at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html The fossil record (despite its gaps) is documented well enough to known the origins of most multicelluar organisms (plants and animals) and it is known that bacteria and algae have been here for 2-3 billion years (as Stromatolites and other evidence attest). The evolution of Homo Sapiens from hominid ancestors is also well-established, at least back to about 4 million years or so.

Even if evolution did involve pure chance, (which it doesn't) that doesn't mean chance alone could not have produced the universe. From a philosophical viewpoint, conciously directed purposes only need to be invoked if it can be demonstrated that there is no other possible explanation for the effect, and in my view, there are alternative explanations to God when it comes to the structure and 'design' (to use a rather anthropomorphic term) of the universe.

 

[Ares]

"It was these idea which lead first to eugenics laws in the early 1900's in the US, which legally allowed sterilization of the "unfit", and by the 1940's, had cultimated into the founding ideologies of the Nazi movements in Germany. Germany thought of itself as the master race of the planet. While Hitler and his regime used Christianity in some of it's propaganda, the writings of Hitler in his autobiography as well as the actions and other documents surviving the regime paint a far differnt picture. One need not be reminded of how many millions of the Jews, Pols, and other ethnicities which died during Hitler's attempts at racial purificaiton. Nor does one need to be reminded of Hitler's attempts to breed the "master race" by cross-breeding teenagers from across Germany who had the traits he considered the most pallatable human traits."

I disagree strongly with your reading of history here. Whilst it is correct that ideas of 'eugenics' did have some foundation from extrapolations of evolution (or more properly the idea of evolution) to the human sphere, the horrors of the 20th century eugenics movement had more to do with the politics and culture at the time than with anything Darwin argued himself (Darwin was by all accounts a deeply virtuous man and worried deeply about the social ramifications of the idea of evolution). The idea that evolution might apply to not just animals but in a teleological fashion to people and nations was developed by the English thinker Herbert Spencer. Marx also was aware of it, though most of his ideas were derived from sources other than Darwin. What needs to be considered though is that long before Darwin, within European culture there was a long history of xenophobia, hatred, paranoia and brutality towards people of other cultures and races, inspired with the enthusiasm of both the Catholic Church and the founders and followers of Protestantism. There are many examples, but I will name a few to jog your memory:

1) The expulsion of Jews from Spain

2) The 'Witch Craze'

3) The Crusades against Islam and Jerusalem

4) The slaughter and exploitation of natives in colonised countries (S.America, Australia, etc)

5) The Catholic and Protestant 'Wars of Religion' (which included the notorious St Bartholomew's Massacre)

6) The acceptance of slavery

7) Institutionalised anti-semitisim, resulting in numerous bloody pogroms against Jews

Number 7) has an especially long history within Christianity, and has been positively encouraged on some occasions.

Many millions of lives were either ended or blighted by these and other atrocities, which over time would probably add up to more than the World Wars took between them. It shouldn't also be forgotten that theologians in both wars were often enthusiastic about it, and regarded it as a matter of pride to get involved (on both sides).



"Millions dead in combat... youths abducted from their homes to be used in genetic cross-breeding experiments, human races herded into camps to be executed based on their genetic make-up... and all in the name of Charles Darwin."


This is complete and utter nonsense. Hitler's ideas were drawn from a number of sources, but his biggest influences were probably German nationalist extremism, political utopianism and the vicious Austrian and German anti-Semitism circulating in Vienna at the time when Hitler was going from flophouse to flophouse and his views were crystallising. By this time Darwin's ideas, applied to the social sphere, had been considerably warped and distorted into a form he (and most sensible scientists at that time) would find repulsive, namely, being used as a tool for political idealogues and fanatics. A standard biography (i.e. Bullock) will show this, as will a reading of Mein Kampf. Hitler's ideas on race and evolution belong to the category of pseudoscience, and a very pernicious one at that. His fictions about 'blood' and 'race' and 'Aryan superiority' had no basis whatsoever in fact (or even extrapolations of fact), nor did his theories of politics, economics, history or culture, and biographers of Hitler are well aware of this.

Hitler's ideas have virtually no correspondence to modern evolutionary biology, and at best, belong in the same realm as Velikovskian astrophysics or Lysenko's genetics. What is more, to errenously blame such a monsterous event as the Holocaust and the Second World War purely and solely on Darwin, when careful historical scholarship over several decades has shown Darwin's ideas had little, if any, relation to these tragedies-is the epitome of ignorance.

 

[Ebedalmo]

Originally posted by Ares
"god has created the universe, because something had to create the universe."

There are some problems with the first cause argument. Here are some outlined from the Freethought zone site:


"First Cause and Cosmological Arguments

The first cause argument states "Everything has a cause and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have been something to start off this chain of events, and that something is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists, namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say that the universe itself is uncaused than to postulate the existence of God and say that God is uncaused. After all, we know that the universe exists.

The problem with your argument against the "first cause" theory is that you are equating the universe with G-d, namely you are saying that since we are postulating a non-contingent being, which we cannot observe, we might as well postulate a non-contingent universe, which we can observe. But of course we know that that the universe is contingent and bound by natural laws, and certainly could not have created itself! Therefore, I think it is logical to say that a non-contingent, infinite being (or force, if you like) created the big bang, created time, and created the natural laws of our universe, and this being/force is what people call G-d.

 

[curioucity]

Well...... the same ol' battle between religion and science.
I don't know how to comment on this actually.... especially since I'm now an atheist ( I was not, according to everybody around me) who still think about divinity (confused? no i hope, that's easy to get)
Whacking this topic alone is as frustrating as deciding whether or not eternity exists.....

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

logical fallacy

<P>

Originally posted by Xevious
Before you can say it is all an illusion, you must bear a burdon of proof. You are making the statement God DOES NOT exist. You must follow through with the burdon of proof, or give up the argument.

That's a logical fallacy. You cannot disprove a negative. In other words, you cannot disprove something for which no evidence exists in the first place. It is the creationists that have the burden of proof, not science. It is they that must provide positive evidence that God <B>does</B> exist. They must provide some sort of <U>objective</U>, <U>measurable</U>, <U>physical</U> and <U>quantifiable</U> test that measures “God”. Until that time, the notion of “God” and anything to do with "God" <B><BIG>is not science</BIG></B>.

 

[and2000x]

This is helpful:

www.fuckchrist.com