I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
So your logic is that because you did not have time to count some birds, God exists? I've heard some weak arguments for the existence of a supreme deity in my time, but that one is pretty awful.
Kilkrazy wrote: I doubt this thread will develop well but I shall leave it unlocked for the moment.
Why would you lock this thread? What rule does it violate?
Medium of Death wrote: That's a really cool piece there. Did you come up with it yourself?
I thought it up while wandering through a labyrinth, and quickly scribbled it down in the margin of a copy of the Burton translation of 1001 Nights I happened to have on me.
hughpower wrote: I thought it up while wandering through a labyrinth, and quickly scribbled it down in the margin of a copy of the Burton translation of 1001 Nights I happened to have on me.
I'm starting to think we need to party, man. Wandering through labyrinths, philosophizing about birds while fanciful thoughts of magic carpet rides dance through our heads--with the right kind of munchies that sounds like an epic day!
The number of birds you saw is only known to God if you believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniprescient deity ala the Judeo-Christian concept of one. This is not definite, and is in and of itself seemingly unknowable, ergo the key (and very logically flawed) element of your argument is invalid based on an assumption that cannot (or at least should not) be made in any academic/intellectual discussion on God.
Beyond that, theres a bit of a math issue inherent to your argument, as you saw a whole number between 1 and 10 which is NOT itself a whole number/integer between 1 and 10, which violates a pretty fundamental mathematical law. The number would have to be conceivable by virtue of the fact that it is a whole number integer between 1 and 10 (and thus conceivable by almost anyone with an average intelligence and most people with a below average one), whether or not it is PERCEIVABLE is a different story, as you don't know how many birds you saw, but that is in and of itself a function of your mental acuity and ability to process information, not a function of whether or not God exists.
Beyond that, as the vision of birds was a function of your mind, the number of birds witnessed is IN FACT known to you by virtue of the fact that mental images produced by the mind are not 'randomly generated', while your conscious mind may not be aware of the number of birds in the image, some element of the subconscious is aware of the exact number, or was aware of the exact number at the time said vision was produced.
Kilkrazy wrote: I doubt this thread will develop well but I shall leave it unlocked for the moment.
Why would you lock this thread? What rule does it violate?
...
Threads don't violate rules. Users violate rules. In this case the amount of gak the thread is likely to attract might justify locking it immediately but I decided to leave it open in the as it turns out naive hope that people would engage in a constructive debate on the issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: I doubt this thread will develop well but I shall leave it unlocked for the moment.
Why would you lock this thread? What rule does it violate?
...
Threads don't violate rules. Users violate rules. In this case the amount of gak the thread is likely to attract might justify locking it immediately but I decided to leave it open in the as it turns out naive hope that people would engage in a constructive debate on the issue.
I think ChaosOmega's comment was very constructive and insightful, and evidence that your lack of faith in the Dakka community and the potential of this thread is unjustified.
Wilytank wrote: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
As ChaosOmega pointed out, an omniscient god is necessary, e.g. Jehovah, but not Ninsun.
jasper76 wrote: I do not get the logical leap from (a) the fact that you couldn't quantify how many birds you saw in your imagination, and (b) God exists.
The unknowability of the # of birds in your mind's eye is completely compatible with (a) 1 or more gods, or (b) no gods.
Its taken from Borges Proof of the Existence of God (the OP's post is technically plagiarism in that regards as it seems he copy/pasted it verbatim without crediting the source), as I've understood it, the idea is similar to like the Uncertainty Principal or something. The idea is that there are no indefinite numbers (which is false), so if you do not know the quantity of birds, then some other entity MUST know the quantity of birds, ergo God must exist in order to provide that the number of birds is definite.
As ChaosOmega pointed out, an omniscient god is necessary, e.g. Jehovah, but not Ninsun.
But therein lies a problem, the idea of an omniscient God is a relatively recent one in human history, and discounts the conceptualizations of God's which predate that development, and thus creates an issue in which a large number of faiths, both past and present, are essentially invalidated, or rather, this 'proof of God' only works if you share the frame of reference of one who believes in an omniscient God. Given that the nature of God and whether or not he (or she) is omniscient is something that is presently uncertain, the entire proof basically falls apart at its assumptions, invalidating any conclusions drawn from it.
Wilytank wrote: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
As ChaosOmega pointed out, an omniscient god is necessary, e.g. Jehovah, but not Ninsun.
Why not Odin? He sacrificed one of his eyes to gain knowledge of the past, present, and future. That's pretty omniscient if you ask me. Besides, he's got a more impressive beard than Jehovah and better songs have been written about him. I think I know which one I'd prefer.
BTW, those birds you saw, they were probably ravens and Odin's two ravens were among them.
I don't think humans can ever know. Personally, I think if there were a supreme creator that were interested in interacting with humanity, He or She would have already done so unambiguously.
I think religion in general is just a way that the psyche of humans try to make sense of the experiences we have. Why would such a creator, in omnipotence, even care what comparative ants like us think, or feel, or do?
I think all we have is us, and that we should try to take better care of each other because it's the right thing to do, not because we fear a spanking from across time.
Wilytank wrote: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
As ChaosOmega pointed out, an omniscient god is necessary, e.g. Jehovah, but not Ninsun.
Why not Odin? He sacrificed one of his eyes to gain knowledge of the past, present, and future. That's pretty omniscient if you ask me. Besides, he's got a more impressive beard than Jehovah and better songs have been written about him. I think I know which one I'd prefer.
BTW, those birds you saw, they were probably ravens and Odin's two ravens were among them.
Odin knows many things about the past and future- but he doesn't know everything. Otherwise he wouldn't need Hugin and Munin to keep an eye on things.
To the OP- you did know the number of those birds, but the noodly appendage of the FSM moved in and altered your perception as He does with all attempts to prove or disprove His existence. None may know the truth of His existence until they are frolicking in the bottomless beer fountains of His kingdom.
Kilkrazy wrote: I doubt this thread will develop well but I shall leave it unlocked for the moment.
Why would you lock this thread? What rule does it violate?
It violates the rule of assumption. Its a religious thread so the assumption is one cant discuss it like adults. Most religion threads do actually end well, though there are some God haters here that don't know how to let go and will never offer a respectful opinion no matter how approached.
Meanwhile please try to ignore the peanut gallery responses you will get, so it took some stones to post this:
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
This is not a great epiphany, but it could well be that the Holy Spirit was talking to you. I am assuming here you are talking about the western omniscient God from context.
Nevertheless you saw an indefinite number of birds because it was your vision, whether God could tell you how many birds you saw is not relevant to that point.
However the general message that beyond your uncertainty lies a larger certainty might have been the real teaching, after all it would apply to anything, not just a flock of birds.
Your experience does fit in with the way the Holy Spirit works, it has the right feel. Have you had this before; it can be quite a profound experience to hear God, and I am prepared to believe you did.
Two lessons:
First remember that the gifts of prophesy and the gift of interpretation are often two separate gifts. What you heard was not prophesy, and anyone can be enabled to interpret a personal message, but often it makes more sense when shared and interpreted. Perhaps you were meant to post this on Dakka.
Second, a single interpretation is not necessarily correct, weigh it up in your own heart and feel free to call for a second opinion, this is not considered weak faithed, dismissing a vision or interpretation without a second confirmation is normal theology, and dependent on how you interpret the relevant scripture a commandment.
This is because the mind that interpret or receives visions is a human mind with a human imagination. You will find if you network with other people who hear God that they/you will approach each other with confirmations, often unbidden. I remember instances of getting the same information from three or four people in as many different ways, it's generally a sign that the source is genuinely of God. Though if you don't trust the multiple sources, don't buy even that, some 'believers' are out to con you, but if you are spiritually alert you will be able to sniff them out over time. It's easy to spot a fake amongst a bunch of people with the charismata.
djones520 wrote: This is why we can't have nice discussions here. To many people can't respect other people.
screw you too chair force
As to the OP, I think I'm with Chaos here... the ideas really fall apart the more you look at them, and the more you actually think about them... Saying that a God must exist because there is a definite number of something makes about as much sense to me as saying, "I heard thunder, ergo, Thor is real"
It's been pointed out that there are other things at work here (most of which are not my area of expertise), and that these other forces at work do not prove, nor disprove the existence of a deity.
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
I would like to accept the above theology, but I must admit it looks too much it is pulling a fast one.
I used to be a christian.
Then I learned about what the Germans and later the Russians did to my country. I relaised I cannot worship an entity that would allow such tings to happen. And the free will thing dosent work for me.
Daemonhammer wrote: I used to be a christian.
Then I learned about what the Germans and later the Russians did to my country. I relaised I cannot worship an entity that would allow such tings to happen. And the free will thing dosent work for me.
Ireland? When did the Russians invade that? I know Russians invaded a lot of places, but I can't seem to remember Ireland. Wasn't it the English (with Dutch leadership ) who invaded Ireland and screwed it over?
Or are you Polish? Poland is the first country I can think of that was invaded by both Germans and Russians (as if an invasion by one major world power was not yet enough...)
I am Polish yes. Just because I have a flag near my picture dosent mean its where I come from. Something people should consider since USA is made up entirely of foreigners.
Daemonhammer wrote: I am Polish yes. Just because I have a flag near my picture dosent mean its where I come from. Something people should consider since USA is made up entirely of foreigners.
Legal and Illegal. Get it right Citizen. Oh and pick up that can and stay off Frazz lawn
Daemonhammer wrote: I am Polish yes. Just because I have a flag near my picture dosent mean its where I come from. Something people should consider since USA is made up entirely of foreigners.
I already thought so, that is why I ask. My picture also doesn't show where I come from (well, only half). I am Russian, from Crimea. I also want to state that I always feel really bad about the Russians having screwed the Poles so badly. You fought so bravely against the Germans, despite all the horrible odds, and than in the end the Red Army moves in and turns Poland into a puppet state. That was a really nasty betrayal. Poles are a great people, you did not deserve that.
But I guess we are moving off-topic now...
Daemonhammer wrote: I am Polish yes. Just because I have a flag near my picture dosent mean its where I come from. Something people should consider since USA is made up entirely of foreigners.
I already thought so, that is why I ask. My picture also doesn't show where I come from (well, only half). I am Russian, from Crimea. I also want to state that I always feel really bad about the Russians having screwed the Poles so badly. You fought so bravely against the Germans, despite all the horrible odds, and than in the end the Red Army moves in and turns Poland into a puppet state. That was a really nasty betrayal. Poles are a great people, you did not deserve that.
But I guess we are moving off-topic now...
Well its nice to see that someone understands. But I suppose if anyone would it would be another eastern European . From that first response I tougt for a minute you were mocking me.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Somebody's been copypasting Anselm from Wikipedia.
Regardless, Kant, Aquinas & Hume would like a word....
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
I would like to accept the above theology, but I must admit it looks too much it is pulling a fast one.
I think it's an example of "Begging the question". If you accept his first point, it is a convincing proof God exists. However, his first point is based off the assumption that God exists (as a purely fictional being is not "...a being than which no greater can be conceived"- see his 3rd point). His argument will affirm convictions that God exists, if one believed in God to begin with. However, if one does not believe in God to begin with, the argument fails to convince. Hence it begs the question.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind. 3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. 5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, God exists.
Somebody's been copypasting Anselm from Wikipedia.
Regardless, Kant, Aquinas & Hume would like a word....
Yup, I was wondering if anyone would recognise it. The knowledge of the Dakka community really amazes me at times.
Daemonhammer wrote: Well its nice to see that someone understands. But I suppose if anyone would it would be another eastern European . From that first response I tougt for a minute you were mocking me.
Nah, I've met too many awesome Poles for me to be able to mock their people.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Somebody's been copypasting Anselm from Wikipedia.
Regardless, Kant, Aquinas & Hume would like a word....
Yup, I was wondering if anyone would recognise it. The knowledge of the Dakka community really amazes me at times.
Because dakka is awesome We shouod start our own religion based around this website tbh.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: I think it's an example of "Begging the question". If you accept his first point, it is a convincing proof God exists. However, his first point is based off the assumption that God exists (as a purely fictional being is not "...a being than which no greater can be conceived"- see his 3rd point). His argument will affirm convictions that God exists, if one believed in God to begin with. However, if one does not believe in God to begin with, the argument fails to convince. Hence it begs the question.
It's also a terrible argument because of point #4: if god is a being so great that it is beyond human understanding then how can you make the subjective judgement that existing in reality improves the greatness of a being?
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Somebody's been copypasting Anselm from Wikipedia.
Regardless, Kant, Aquinas & Hume would like a word....
Yup, I was wondering if anyone would recognise it. The knowledge of the Dakka community really amazes me at times.
I took a Philosophy A Level about seven years ago, and covered the various ontological arguments pretty comprehensively. You're doing something similar now I presume?
Daemonhammer wrote: I used to be a christian.
Then I learned about what the Germans and later the Russians did to my country. I relaised I cannot worship an entity that would allow such tings to happen. And the free will thing dosent work for me.
There are some truly awful things in the world that people do to each other, but a God that would enslave you is far worse.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
when i saw the numbers the first thing that came to mind was 8 6 7 5 3 0 9
While I believe in God 100%, this rationale sounds like the "vision" created through the use of shrooms. In a similar vein, I'd like to posit that cake+hydrogen peroxide=Proof of God. Because...well, honestly, if I need to explain my math after that first post, then it's all of you that need help.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
when i saw the numbers the first thing that came to mind was 8 6 7 5 3 0 9
Jenny?
Regardless, God cannot be proved to exist (or not) Douglas Adams proved that in his brilliant HHGTTG series.
I used to not believe in any gods. I still don't worship any.
However, I now believe every god (no matter the religion) is real simply if things happen in the real world based upon the actions people take in the name of that god, for good or evil. I mean, whether there is an intangible thing watching down upon you and judging you for your actions doesn't affect me quite like your actions do. But you wouldn't act that way if you didn't believe in a god. Belief begets action, thus there is power in belief. It is in that power that your god is real. The only thing believers get wrong is the causality. No god created us, we created them by acting as their agents.
That soup kitchen being run by a church is real because of a god. Holy wars are also actions because of a god, making it exactly as real.
I don't see what your inability to count some imaginary birds has to do with god. It just suggests you simply lack the time or ability to count them.
If thinking everything with a definite number that isn't knowable means god must exist, then quantum physics will blow your mind. Is OP one of these quantum physics proves god people?
How about I roll a D6, it can only result in one of six numbers face up. I roll it in a sealed box, I then destroy the box. No one will ever know that number except an omnipotent being. Thus God exists. QED.
Unless it's in regards to some manner of transhumanist, singularity inspired zeitgeist I would be perfectly happy if no one entered into any sort of religious debate ever again on the internet.
Dust wrote: Unless it's in regards to some manner of transhumanist, singularity inspired zeitgeist I would be perfectly happy if no one entered into any sort of religious debate ever again on the internet.
Excuse me but it's my duty to ensure that people are enlightened about the many joys and virtues of Kronkism.
When you realize most of Christianity's beliefs, symbols, religious days and customs were just taken from other religions at the time by their current rulers to get them to conform. It all starts to fall apart.
Which one? The cool first one, or the lame second one? Cause honestly, setting the framework for Canon Law is so much more exciting than telling the Emperor he was being a douche bag for banning holy icons.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Forgive me for being a bit skeptical, but it means you saw a few birds when you closed your eyes and didn't count them fast enough.
Vash108 wrote: The first. If the bible was truly gods words, who are they to pick and choose what goes in it.
So a bunch of guys got together and decided they needed to take all the 'Gods Word' floating around and pick the ones they thought most true. Also not the Council of Nicea (Though Constantine Commissioned 50 Bibles with the same basic structure we use today a few years after Nicea). Biblical Canon != Canon Law. You're thinking of the Council of Trent, though the Synod of Hippo 1000 years earlier had reached essentially the same conclusion (The Synod of Hippo didn't approve Revelation). Nicea had nothing to do with the development of Biblical Canon.
Uno: There's quite a few good reasons to explain the idea of an "uncountable" amount of birds, most of which have at least some claim to scientific certainty (e.g. what you perceive as the picture of a flock of birds, is just your brain priming bird-relevant information. Since we usually don't bother counting how many birds are in a flock, that info was not contained in what you had on your mind.)
Duo: Even when accepting your premise, you still fail to deliver a logical link between it and the existence of god. It's not even a logical fallacy, but a straight up lack of any internal logic.
Ergo: While the experience might have been of importance to you, and has served as a sort of revelation, I can't help but citing a slightly butchered quote: "Faith is, when we try to replace reason and logic with emotion."
daedalus wrote: I used to not believe in any gods. I still don't worship any.
However, I now believe every god (no matter the religion) is real simply if things happen in the real world based upon the actions people take in the name of that god, for good or evil. I mean, whether there is an intangible thing watching down upon you and judging you for your actions doesn't affect me quite like your actions do. But you wouldn't act that way if you didn't believe in a god. Belief begets action, thus there is power in belief. It is in that power that your god is real. The only thing believers get wrong is the causality. No god created us, we created them by acting as their agents.
That soup kitchen being run by a church is real because of a god. Holy wars are also actions because of a god, making it exactly as real.
The OP's argument is still weak sauce.
I'm not of a religious persuasion and doubt I ever will be; but this is a very interesting way of looking at religion and what it does that hadn't occured to me before.
Thanks daedalus! You've given me something interesting to think about!
Couple of things. Just because you don't know which of the numbers 1 through 9 you saw, doesn't mean you saw some magical other, unknowable-by-by-anyone-but-God number. It simply means you don't know which of the numbers between 1 and 9 you saw.
As for the second stepwise God exists reasoning, the first counterargument that came into my head was that just because I can conceive of something doesn't mean that it has to actually exist, does exist, or even can exist. Indeed, there is a logical disconnect between being able to conceive something inconceivable.
2.5 pages in, and there's still no asshattery from either pro or anti-religious parties.
Well done guys!
While I'm an atheist by nature, I'm happy enough for anyone to have their own beliefs as long as a) It allows them to be a better person and cope with their existence on this rock and b) That they practice their faith quietly with manipulating or indoctrinating others and children in particular.
I think Jorge Luis Borges had a faith affirming dream or experience, one that cannot be explained or passed on to others. Those who seek affirmation of a deity or creed will find it. The harder you search, the greater the revelation. Similarly those who do not search in such a manner will not experience a revelation, but may still appreciate the beauty or poignancy of what stirred such affirming feelings in others. Both approaches are no more or less valid than the other and are of equal value.
Zond wrote: I think the OP had a faith affirming dream, one that cannot be explained or passed on to others. Those who seek affirmation of a deity or creed will find it. The harder you search, the greater the revelation. Similarly those who do not search in such a manner will not experience a revelation, but may still appreciate the beauty or poignancy of what stirred such affirming feelings in others. Both approaches are no more or less valid than the other and are of equal value.
No, the OP just copy pasted the Argumentum Ornithologicum from Jorge Luis Borges work "Dreamtigers" (and without even stating his source).
Aw no, faith in Dakka destroyed! All my meager brain power for the day wasted. However surely someone just won Dakka bingo with that remark, making this thread useful again.
I'm a declared atheist, my reasons are my own, but this thread has stirred something in me faith wise.
I just ate lunch, I don't know how many calories were in my lunch, but there was definately more than one, and considering it was a modest repast, I would say that there were less than my RDA of calories in it (about 2100 being a male in a sedentary job). I threw most of the packaging away, so it fits in my lunchbox, so I am unable to determine the number of calories in my lunch, but the supermarket I purchased the components of my lunch from, does know the exact calorific content of those components (and therefore my whole lunch), so it is unknown to me, but known to a higher power (a corporation of some vast size and wealth)
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
If I might illustrate why this doesn't really work, replace God with Felis Magnus, a universe-sized cat.
1. Our understanding of Felis Magnus is a cat of which no bigger cat an be conceived.
2. The idea of Felis Magnus exists in the mind.
3. A cat that exists both in the mind and in reality is bigger than a cat that exists only in the mind.
4. If Felis Magnus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a bigger cat—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine a cat that is bigger than Felis Magnus.
6. Therefore, Felis Magnus exists.
Imagining things does not make them magically pop out from your imagination into reality.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Is this copy right infringement?
From Dreamtigers, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Mildred Boyer
timetowaste85 wrote: While I believe in God 100%, this rationale sounds like the "vision" created through the use of shrooms. In a similar vein, I'd like to posit that cake+hydrogen peroxide=Proof of God. Because...well, honestly, if I need to explain my math after that first post, then it's all of you that need help.
Fafnir wrote: OP, I'm sure that sounded so insightful when you were high, but you might want to reconsider once you've come down.
Did nobody notice the part where I said the OP took the theorem he posted from Borges Proof for the Existence of God? I posted it on Page 1 of this thread... come on, its published for christs sake (no pun intended) how did nobody but me pick up on that??
No, the OP just copy pasted the Argumentum Ornithologicum from Jorge Luis Borges work "Dreamtigers" (and without even stating his source).
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Is this copy right infringement?
From Dreamtigers, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Mildred Boyer
THANK YOU!
Seems we got a little Shia LeBeouf in training over here hehe
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
If I might illustrate why this doesn't really work, replace God with Felis Magnus, a universe-sized cat.
1. Our understanding of Felis Magnus is a cat of which no bigger cat an be conceived.
2. The idea of Felis Magnus exists in the mind.
3. A cat that exists both in the mind and in reality is bigger than a cat that exists only in the mind.
4. If Felis Magnus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a bigger cat—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine a cat that is bigger than Felis Magnus.
6. Therefore, Felis Magnus exists.
Imagining things does not make them magically pop out from your imagination into reality.
Ketara wrote: Try something with a noodly appendage.
I draw a firm line at outright blasphemy, and I will not cross it. Besides, how could anyone understand unless they've also been touched by the dangling angel hairs. Pastafari!
P.S. Please don't anyone confuse my religion with Trustafarianism, which is reserved for white guys with dreadlocks.
Vash108 wrote: The first. If the bible was truly gods words, who are they to pick and choose what goes in it.
So a bunch of guys got together and decided they needed to take all the 'Gods Word' floating around and pick the ones they thought most true. Also not the Council of Nicea (Though Constantine Commissioned 50 Bibles with the same basic structure we use today a few years after Nicea). Biblical Canon != Canon Law. You're thinking of the Council of Trent, though the Synod of Hippo 1000 years earlier had reached essentially the same conclusion (The Synod of Hippo didn't approve Revelation). Nicea had nothing to do with the development of Biblical Canon.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Somebody's been copypasting Anselm from Wikipedia.
Regardless, Kant, Aquinas & Hume would like a word....
Yup, I was wondering if anyone would recognise it. The knowledge of the Dakka community really amazes me at times.
I took a Philosophy A Level about seven years ago, and covered the various ontological arguments pretty comprehensively. You're doing something similar now I presume?
Yeah, we just had a lesson about Anselm and his argument a little while ago.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
So, god exists if the sum of avians can be quantified, but, does not exist if the avians cannot be quantified. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. Being able to quantify something tends to suggests it's mundane. If it's mundane, then it's not divine. If something is unquantifiable, that doesn't auotmatically lend support for the existence of the divine. You are operating on the assumption that you understand how god operates. What if God can't see into your mind? What if he doesn't care, and has more important things to do than look at your perverse attraction to pigeons? I can conceive of a perfectly square room whose euclidean geometry suggests it has 4 walls, yet, somehow there's another pair of walls that are perpendicular to the reference frame the 4 initial walls are in. This hyper-dimensional reality exists only in my head. Does this prove or disprove god? The answer is it does neither. It's like answering "purple" to a question that asks for a response scaled from 1 to 10.
I will also say this. I get the track you are moving along. Descartes did it better, and I did not find his argument compelling either.
Wilytank wrote: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
As ChaosOmega pointed out, an omniscient god is necessary, e.g. Jehovah, but not Ninsun.
Why not Odin? He sacrificed one of his eyes to gain knowledge of the past, present, and future. That's pretty omniscient if you ask me. Besides, he's got a more impressive beard than Jehovah and better songs have been written about him. I think I know which one I'd prefer.
BTW, those birds you saw, they were probably ravens and Odin's two ravens were among them.
In terms of awesome gods, I'm gonna go with Kali
she has a dress made of arms!
Wall o text responding to a lot of folks in this thread, I hope the spoiler thing works
Spoiler:
As bad as I feel the OP’s line of reasoning is (basically I cant know X, but Xinfinity cannot exist, B is purported to know X, therefore B exists) what little reasoning to the contrary that has been offered so far is just as bad.
Wilytank: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
We are talking about the accepted philosophical concept/definition of big G God. Namely the maximally great being possessing the maximal value of every great making property. Now stop being obtuse >
Chaos0xomega: …But therein lies a problem, the idea of an omniscient God is a relatively recent one in human history, and discounts the conceptualizations of God's which predate that development, and thus creates an issue in which a large number of faiths, both past and present, are essentially invalidated, or rather, this 'proof of God' only works if you share the frame of reference of one who believes in an omniscient God. Given that the nature of God and whether or not he (or she) is omniscient is something that is presently uncertain, the entire proof basically falls apart at its assumptions, invalidating any conclusions drawn from it.
When the knowledge was gained is irrelevant to the veracity of the knowledge. You seem to make a mistake here that I feel shows a bit about your personal ignorance (please do not read that with ANY malicious tone it is meant kindly!) on this matter. The concept of God (cap G) is different than the concept of gods (small g) they are not the same thing and conflating the two will only force you to draw incorrect conclusions. The concept of created gods is irrelevant to any discussion involving uncreated Gods. Any discussion involving God requires the assumption that God is uncreated as it is one of the great making properties required for the concept of the maximally great being. As a side point, God would be genderless. God is not a species of animal that has sexual gender. God, from a judeo- christian perspective is referred to in the masculine due to Gods fatherly relation with humanity.
Daemonhammer: I used to be a christian.
Then I learned about what the Germans and later the Russians did to my country. I relaised I cannot worship an entity that would allow such tings to happen. And the free will thing dosent work for me.
Im sorry, but why was what the Germans and Russians did wrong? Where did you get your standard by which to judge their actions thusly? To that point, why is a deity that allows people to do what they want to do, a bad one? We either have free will or we don’t. If we have free will the Russians and Germans are free to commit whatever atrocities they wish to. If we do not have free will, then the Russians and Germans did nothing wrong, merely acting on impulses they have no control over, and your outrage at what they did is also just you feeling what you are forced to feel.
Iron_captain:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
The problem, as I see it with Anselms reasoning is simply at point 2 and 3. We made a switch here from talking about an idea of a being, to discussing the being. The second problem I see is the statement that a being can ACTUALLY exist in the mind of another being. I see no reason to accept that; in fact, to exist a being must exist independently of others. Otherwise the being is merely a concept/idea.
Peregrine: It's also a terrible argument because of point #4: if god is a being so great that it is beyond human understanding then how can you make the subjective judgement that existing in reality improves the greatness of a being?
Funny, I never thought you would borrow from Islam to argue against the concept of God. The ability to know something exhaustively doesn’t preclude one from drawing conclusions. You could argue their conclusions are faulty, but that requires proof and not mere assertion. We do not and in fact cannot, know God exhaustively, or else God wouldn’t be an infinitely great being eh? Now to address the conclusion of your statement, if a being does not really exist (that is the meaning of exist in reality) it cannot BE a great being, but merely the CONCEPT of a great being.
Daemonhammer: To quote Captain Jean-Luc Picard:
"Any being sufficently advanced could be considered a god in the eyes of those less advanced."
To quote myself responding to Captain Jean-luc Picard: *squeak* err… umm.. Iloveyou!
But no seriously, any god who is merely more technologically advanced than its supplicants is not God (note the capital G ad the concept to which it refers, i.e. the concept this thread is discussing)
Quick statement to respond to a number of similar posts, the concept of God=/= God. Concepts of God exist unequivocally, the question is does the Being the concept describes exist?
Vash108: When you realize most of Christianity's beliefs, symbols, religious days and customs were just taken from other religions at the time by their current rulers to get them to conform. It all starts to fall apart.
Also council of Nicea anyone?
Wrong on so many levels, Zeitgeist is a travesty that has misinformed SO many people. You ARE correct on the appropriation of many cultures existing holidays, but that was done by the catholic church to aid in the assimilation of Christianity and roman culture into far flung and various gothic/celtic/druidic faiths. The birth of Christ was already widely celebrated before the hijacking of winter solstice into Christmas. The symbols of the holiday were adapted and used as parables to explain Christian doctrine in an easily understood and readily available fashion.
What about the Council of Nicea?
Prior to the codification of what is now the New Testament, the documents were already held as God breathed scripture. The assembly of the bible was more a logistical thing than some conspiracy to control the masses. It was also done because at the time there were a lot of folks popping up saying they found “new gospels” and had “new revelations” that contradicted already established scripture (I.E. Pauline letters etc…) Canonization combated that, it prevented attempted rewriting of history.
TIgurius: While I'm an atheist by nature, I'm happy enough for anyone to have their own beliefs as long as a) It allows them to be a better person and cope with their existence on this rock and b) That they practice their faith quietly with manipulating or indoctrinating others and children in particular.
I find that requiring believers to believe quietly and in their own little corners as well as not teaching their children THEIR beliefs but rather, yours it would seem, is pretty close to being dangerously hypocritical. What’s the default if you can’t teach your own children your own convictions? Teach them yours? A muslim’s? A Buddhists? A Christians? Not to teach them anything? A parent’s job is to teach their children how to behave within society. If that behavior is grounded in a faith system, why should a parent ignore the foundations? Because you disagree with their beliefs? Seems fishy to me is all…
Jasper76: If I might illustrate why this doesn't really work, replace God with Felis Magnus, a universe-sized cat.
1. Our understanding of Felis Magnus is a cat of which no bigger cat an be conceived.
2. The idea of Felis Magnus exists in the mind.
3. A cat that exists both in the mind and in reality is bigger than a cat that exists only in the mind.
4. If Felis Magnus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a bigger cat—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine a cat that is bigger than Felis Magnus.
6. Therefore, Felis Magnus exists.
Imagining things does not make them magically pop out from your imagination into reality.
Your argument suffers the same problems as the original as well as a new one. A universe-sized cat is a problematic concept as several of the properties that make a creature a cat, would could not possibly be possessed by a universe sized creature (such as its food source, its origin [parents suffer the same problem] just to name a few off the top of my head).
I whole heartedly agree with your last statement however.
The FSM belongs on my dinner plate, im hungry and spaghetti is one of my faves >
Tldnr?: I am a christian, I think the op's logic is flawed:
If God exists X =/= X~, if G doesn't exist X=X~. I was unable to count X, but actual X is inconceivable, therefore God exists.
If you want a logical link well: I am Wiccan. I am also a practising witch. A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00. For me that is proof of a logical link betwixt my religion and reality. Even more so, I see plants and trees come back to life after a long winter, I see baby animals born and feats of Natures - my Goddess's - wrath and love that are undeniable. I see the sun come up at day and the Lady Moon at night. That is a tenable link.
OP, just because you could not count the birds it does not prove anything. If you want a link well.... When was one of your prayers last answered?
I know what you mean. I have a rock that repels tigers. I keep it at my house, because when I leave, I'm usually in the car, and then indoors, and I'm pretty sure tigers can't open doors. I do take it with me while camping though, and would you believe? I've never seen tigers when I'm around the rock. I know it works, because I saw tigers once when I didn't have the rock.
master of ordinance wrote: A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00. For me that is proof of a logical link betwixt my religion and reality.
With respect, this sounds to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
master of ordinance wrote: Even more so, I see plants and trees come back to life after a long winter, I see baby animals born and feats of Natures - my Goddess's - wrath and love that are undeniable. I see the sun come up at day and the Lady Moon at night. That is a tenable link.
...and all of these phenomena were described by science quite sometime ago with no appeal to the supernatural necessary.
You can never can be too careful with tigers. It only takes between one and ten to end your life! Their stripes make it more difficult to count and quantify, and seeing them at your house proves the existence of a vengeful god with a cruel sense of humor.
I hope that if it happens to me, I will have the forethought for my last words to be "This is a cool way to die!".
daedalus wrote: I know what you mean. I have a rock that repels tigers. I keep it at my house, because when I leave, I'm usually in the car, and then indoors, and I'm pretty sure tigers can't open doors. I do take it with me while camping though, and would you believe? I've never seen tigers when I'm around the rock. I know it works, because I saw tigers once when I didn't have the rock.
master of ordinance wrote: A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00. For me that is proof of a logical link betwixt my religion and reality.
With respect, this sounds to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
master of ordinance wrote: Even more so, I see plants and trees come back to life after a long winter, I see baby animals born and feats of Natures - my Goddess's - wrath and love that are undeniable. I see the sun come up at day and the Lady Moon at night. That is a tenable link.
...and all of these phenomena were described by science quite sometime ago with no appeal to the supernatural necessary.
Sorry, I really couldnt help it, the OP threw the bait far and wide
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
While I believe in God, I think that is a very poor reason for belief.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
If God exists, he will have to beg for my forgiveness.
Very first story in the bible says he kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of eden AFTER they disobeyed him, ate from the tree of knowledge, and gained the knowledge of right and wrong.
ergo he created an animal with no idea of what was wrong and still blamed them when they misbehaved even though they had no idea it was wrong to disobey.
Sounds like somebody has issues admitting that they made a mistake, but I am sure that we all know a few people with this same problem and god did make people in his image so...
All I am saying, is that if I am wrong, and god/jehova/allah does exist, I want nothing at all to do with him and I fully understand why 1/3rd of his angels rebelled when he said he wanted to create an entire RACE in his image.
scorpio2069 wrote: If God exists, he will have to beg for my forgiveness.
Very first story in the bible says he kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of eden AFTER they disobeyed him, ate from the tree of knowledge, and gained the knowledge of right and wrong.
ergo he created an animal with no idea of what was wrong and still blamed them when they misbehaved even though they had no idea it was wrong to disobey.
Sounds like somebody has issues admitting that they made a mistake, but I am sure that we all know a few people with this same problem and god did make people in his image so...
All I am saying, is that if I am wrong, and god/jehova/allah does exist, I want nothing at all to do with him and I fully understand why 1/3rd of his angels rebelled when he said he wanted to create an entire RACE in his image.
scorpio2069 wrote: If God exists, he will have to beg for my forgiveness.
Very first story in the bible says he kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of eden AFTER they disobeyed him, ate from the tree of knowledge, and gained the knowledge of right and wrong.
ergo he created an animal with no idea of what was wrong and still blamed them when they misbehaved even though they had no idea it was wrong to disobey.
Sounds like somebody has issues admitting that they made a mistake, but I am sure that we all know a few people with this same problem and god did make people in his image so...
All I am saying, is that if I am wrong, and god/jehova/allah does exist, I want nothing at all to do with him and I fully understand why 1/3rd of his angels rebelled when he said he wanted to create an entire RACE in his image.
I have a feeling this could become very heated...
Well, I'd argue that, prior to that event NO Animal had knowledge of "right" vs. "wrong". and at this point in time, human beings are the only animal on this planet that has a concept of right/wrong. EVERY other animal out there has Survive or Die as the only real concepts they live by.
God either exists or does not and no amount of wishful thinking from any number of people will affect whatever the reality of the matter happens to be.
This is my reasoning for choosing to avoid the entire issue, I just don't see what good it would do, or what it would prove to any kind of higher deity about myself as a person. Would be rather nice if there was a benevolent God, 99.9% odds are we're all just shaved monkeys on a rock flying through space with a 1-way trip to oblivion in 1-100 years time.
Religious belief might be a pleasant method of distraction from that unpleasant thought, but it doesn't do anything to affect or change whatever the right answer actually is.
From a sociological perspective, approximately 50% of a population need to believe in God or they cease to function at peak capacity (become alcoholics. etc.)
So yup, approximately half of us need to believe in god or we get consumed in anxiety/worry/uncertainty
and approximately half of us don't seem to be overwhelmed by anxiety/worry/uncertainty and therewith don't need god
one of the fun things about god is that a proven cure to alcoholism is "surrendering yourself to a higher power"
So yeah, if you are an alcoholic go god. Not an alcoholic, read Sartre.
col_impact wrote: From a sociological perspective, approximately 50% of a population need to believe in God or they cease to function at peak capacity (become alcoholics. etc.)
So yup, approximately half of us need to believe in god or we get consumed in anxiety/worry/uncertainty
and approximately half of us don't seem to be overwhelmed by anxiety/worry/uncertainty and therewith don't need god
one of the fun things about god is that a proven cure to alcoholism is "surrendering yourself to a higher power"
So yeah, if you are an alcoholic go god. Not an alcoholic, read Sartre.
Riiiight.... there is so much wrong with this post I don't actually know where to start...
Imo, science & human technological advancement is doing a great job of proving that not only God could exist but likely does.
This statement is based upon the idea of god either being the creator of our physical universe or that the universe is contained within the body of God.
I accept that others might dis-agree with my view based upon a differing perspective of what God is.
focusedfire wrote: Imo, science & human technological advancement is doing a great job of proving that not only God could exist but likely does.
This statement is based upon the idea of god either being the creator of our physical universe or that the universe is contained within the body of God.
I accept that others might dis-agree with my view based upon a differing perspective of what God is.
What exactly in science and technological advancement is proving god exists or is likely? And which god(s) are being proven?
I must admit that I've obviously not read any of those scientific papers...
focusedfire wrote: Imo, science & human technological advancement is doing a great job of proving that not only God could exist but likely does.
This statement is based upon the idea of god either being the creator of our physical universe or that the universe is contained within the body of God.
I accept that others might dis-agree with my view based upon a differing perspective of what God is.
What exactly in science and technological advancement is proving god exists or is likely? And which god(s) are being proven?
I must admit that I've obviously not read any of those scientific papers...
Before I reply in depth, I first must ask, "How do you define God?". Or, more clearly,"What is your personal perception of what would be God?".
Also, as to your question about which God, I ask, "Why does it matter or have to be a specific one?".
I gave a pretty clear description of my "idea" of what God is. Why, the need to confuse the issue with religion?
You ask those questions as if they actually mean something. You stated something, it is up to you to present evidence to support your statement, not for me to define your position.
And I made no mention of religion. You stated there was evidence for god - I sought clarification as to which one(s).
Modern science has been at best agnostic on the issue of deities. In terms of results, science has been steadily removing gaps for the God of the Gaps to hide in. If you are religious for scientific reasons, and you want to stay that way, I'd find new reasons, because it's almost inevitable that science will find an adequate explanation that does not require the hand of God.
SilverMK2 wrote:You ask those questions as if they actually mean something. You stated something, it is up to you to present evidence to support your statement, not for me to define your position.
And I made no mention of religion. You stated there was evidence for god - I sought clarification as to which one(s).
A)Those questions have much meaning if we are going to engage in an "honest" & "productive" discussion. When both sides have stated their stance on a given idea and the basis for said stance then the parties involved can have a clear discussion that avoids confusion or dishonesty.
The fact that you failed to understand this or to answer an honest question suggests that to me that you do not wish to have a honest discussion on such subject matter.
B) Did not ask you to define my position. Asked you for "your" idea of what / how you define the concept. If we are going to have a discussion on the possibility of the existence of such a thing as God, then it would seem to be obvious that we are both discussing the same "concept".
You see,"I am not" in this thread to have a debate about religion, "I am" in this thread to discuss why I believe in the "possibility" of the existence of a being / entity that fits "my" idea of what is God.
C) Please, you made a direct reference to religion by asking "Which God(s) are being proven?".
Please to understand that God and religion are two different things. God could be seen as a vast and powerful being / entity whose abilities match or exceed an individuals idea of what would constitute a god / divine being.
Religion is a belief system that man creates around the concept of "a" god in order to gain and exercise political power.
Also note that religion and faith are different, this is because faith is merely the belief in something that is commonly believed to be neither provable or disprovable.
Now please excuse me, jasper 76 has replied with a stated position from which we can begin to discuss. Feel free to join in once you are willing to provide a better stance than "you prove your point while I move the goal posts".
jasper76 wrote:Modern science has been at best agnostic on the issue of deities. In terms of results, science has been steadily removing gaps for the God of the Gaps to hide in. If you are religious for scientific reasons, and you want to stay that way, I'd find new reasons, because it's almost inevitable that science will find an adequate explanation that does not require the hand of God.
Ok, You refer to your idea of God as to being the "God of the Gaps".
For clarification, I ask if you are referring to a specific God that requires "leaps of faith" as would be defined by a religion?
Or,
Are you just referring to God as the enigmatic concept?
Also, I ask, ""What is your personal perception of what would be God?".."How do you define the concept?".
You see, I ask this because many people have differing "ideas" and "definitions" of what exactly would be God.
This is why I have no problem believing in the existence of God while simultaneously understanding why others don't. I have my idea as to what defines God "for me" and within that definition I find the existence of god not only possible but likely. I also, accept that others may have different ideas as to what defines God for them and that these differences lead them to have differing conclusions.
Now, I hope you begin to understand the position from which I am discussing. To sum up:
1) I am discussing the scientific possibility of a God entity.
2) I am not discussing any particular religion's deity.
3) The concept of God that I am working from is a transcendent creator being / entity.
3a) Transcendent can mean anything from non-corporeal being of pure energy to an entity whose physical form is so vast that it exceeds the boundaries of the universe.
3b) Creator can mean anything from a being that is capable of terra-forming a planet and then creating life-forms suitable for existence on said world...to... a being capable of creating an environment that both contains the universe and sets the paradigms by which it operates.
and
4) I "do not" expect that anyone else should have to agree with my concept of God, but for the purpose of discussion I do expect others to understand my concept as they would want me to understand theirs.
Now, Working from the concept that I have of God, I believe that as our science and technology advance then we as a species advance from "God is a magical being" to "God is an incredibly advanced being". Also extrapolating from our science that all living things evolve then God as a living being evolved into the advanced being it currently is.
This also means that if a species can remove the possibility of extinction and is able to advance scientifically, then at some point said species "could" evolve into a God being / entity.
Also, that if the barriers to survival and space colonization are removed them man has a near unlimited amount of time to advance and evolve. That as our science advances we not only understand how the universe was made, we step by step learn how to replicate those processes in order to prove our theories.
This means that with a long enough time frame, man will be able to replicate the creation process.
If we get to the point where man can replicate all of the processes that created the universe then we will have proved that the universe "could" have been created by a powerful being/entity (God).
Science is based on assumptions. As there is no way to know what matter is made out of. We don't know certain things so we assume certain ideas. Science is based on certain assumptions such as existance. We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program. We assume that certain ideas are available because they simply are.
What about god you might ask?
God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.
We don't really know. Its a mystery of life that will forever be a mystery. Some believe in Pastafarian, I believe in Johvah the god of the christians, jewish and muslim peoples.
The OP needs to work on his idea of why god is real.
It's interesting how the population's views on God have changed so much in the past 100 years. Think about having this conversation in the early 1900s. All the people saying they don't believe in or need God would be ridiculed. Personally, I think people should feel completely free to express their opinions, I just think it's interesting how so much has changed.
Science is based on assumptions. As there is no way to know what matter is made out of. We don't know certain things so we assume certain ideas. Science is based on certain assumptions such as existance. We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program. We assume that certain ideas are available because they simply are.
What about god you might ask?
God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.
We don't really know. Its a mystery of life that will forever be a mystery. Some believe in Pastafarian, I believe in Johvah the god of the christians, jewish and muslim peoples.
The OP needs to work on his idea of why god is real.
There are so many things that are wrong in this post that I don't even know where to begin...
No, that is the exact opposite of what science is based of. Science is based on facts, a fact is something that is verifiable and repeatable through experimentation.
We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program.
No, we know that we exist because we are here and can experience each other and the universe around us and have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would suggest any of the mumbo jumbo that you are sprouting.
Asherian Command wrote: God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.
No, this is a false premise. God doesn't exist because there isn't a single shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a being that could be classified as god anywhere in the universe. Just because you can make something up doesn't mean that that something is suddenly real when there is 0 evidence to back up its existence.
For clarification, I ask if you are referring to a specific God that requires "leaps of faith" as would be defined by a religion?
Or,
Are you just referring to God as the enigmatic concept?
I am referring to "God" as one or more intelligences responsible for creating the universe. This seems to be the common denominator among most religions, and it fits the description you provided as your concept of God.
focusedfire wrote: Now, I hope you begin to understand the position from which I am discussing. To sum up:
1) I am discussing the scientific possibility of a God entity.
2) I am not discussing any particular religion's deity.
3) The concept of God that I am working from is a transcendent creator being / entity.
3a) Transcendent can mean anything from non-corporeal being of pure energy to an entity whose physical form is so vast that it exceeds the boundaries of the universe.
3b) Creator can mean anything from a being that is capable of terra-forming a planet and then creating life-forms suitable for existence on said world...to... a being capable of creating an environment that both contains the universe and sets the paradigms by which it operates.
and
4) I "do not" expect that anyone else should have to agree with my concept of God, but for the purpose of discussion I do expect others to understand my concept as they would want me to understand theirs.
Now, Working from the concept that I have of God, I believe that as our science and technology advance then we as a species advance from "God is a magical being" to "God is an incredibly advanced being". Also extrapolating from our science that all living things evolve then God as a living being evolved into the advanced being it currently is.
Actually, science is painting a picture, which becomes clearer with every major discovery, that there is no creative intelligence behind the universe. If that is upsetting or takes some beauty out of your worldview, that's fine, but it is what it is. Science is a game of facts rather than feelings. I find it a bit surprising that you would classify an intelligence that evolved through natural selection as a God, as it shows a little lack of self-respect IMO since you came into being the exact same way. In any case, science is pointing toward a universe with no creative intelligence behind it, whether evolved or otherwise. Which is not to say that there is no God behind everything, only that it is improbable.
focusedfire wrote: A)Those questions have much meaning if we are going to engage in a "honest" & "productive" discussion. When both sides have stated their stance on a given idea and the basis for said stance then the parties involved can have a clear discussion that avoids confusion or dishonesty.
The fact that you failed to understand this or to answer an honest question suggests that to me that you do not wish to have a honest discussion on such subject matter.
On the contrary. You made a very bold claim with little to no backing - you didn't even begin to put forward anything to support it. My position on the matter is currently immaterial since you have not provided anything material for me to respond to.
B) Did not ask you to define my position. Asked you for "your" idea of what / how you define the concept. If we are going to have a discussion on the possibility of the existence of such a thing as God, then it would seem to be obvious that we are both discussing the same "concept".
You see,"I am not" in this thread to have a debate about religion, "I am" in this thread to discuss why I believe in the "possibility" of the existence of a being / entity that fits "my" idea of what is God.
You asked me to provide you with my position on the subject when I asked you to explain your initial post. Again, my views on god, gods, religion, science, etc are utterly immaterial to answering that. But more on this in reply to your last point...
C) Please, you made a direct reference to religion by asking "Which God(s) are being proven?".
Please to understand that God and religion are two different things. God could be seen as a vast and powerful being / entity whose abilities match or exceed an individuals idea of what would constitute a god / divine being.
Religion is a belief system that man creates around the concept of "a" god in order to gain and exercise political power.
Also note that religion and faith are different, this is because faith is merely the belief in something that is commonly believed to be neither provable or disprovable.
You kind of make the point here that asking about what god(s) are being proven does not require one to be talkimg about religion. As you say, gods are what religions are designed to represent/interface with (although there are a great many examples of gods being made to fit a religion or earthly requirement... perhaps we can move on to discussing that at some point if you elect to actually expand on your initial post).
Feel free to join in once you are willing to provide a better stance than "you prove your point while I move the goal posts".
You see, it could be considered that you asked what my views were rather than respond to my direct question for exactly this reason...
As I believe the rest of your post has already been replied to I will end here.
Science is based on assumptions. As there is no way to know what matter is made out of. We don't know certain things so we assume certain ideas. Science is based on certain assumptions such as existance. We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program. We assume that certain ideas are available because they simply are.
What about god you might ask?
God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.
We don't really know. Its a mystery of life that will forever be a mystery. Some believe in Pastafarian, I believe in Johvah the god of the christians, jewish and muslim peoples.
The OP needs to work on his idea of why god is real.
There are so many things that are wrong in this post that I don't even know where to begin...
Not really. There are many reasons to believe that faith is connected to science. Science is faith. As assumptions or the 'facts' are human rationality trying to explain the world. They are not the truth. They are a 100% correct. Get it right. Science is based on Assumption. Which is then based on faith. WE assume certain things to be true. Because all science is based on human reasoning. If it was not based on human reasoning then it would be true fact. But we can't say that for its entirety. We only have to go on faith on certain subjects. Like my existence and your existence. we have no idea. We really can't prove we are alive or dead, or that anything could be an elaborate hoax created by our mind. You can't prove it. We assume that we aren't. That's Faith in a nut shell.
No, that is the exact opposite of what science is based of. Science is based on facts, a fact is something that is verifiable and repeatable through experimentation.
Check my ideas. As I have explained this before. you are getting this wrong. Ever scientist forgets one thing. Subjectivity and assumptions are science based. Science assumes certain ideas.
As there is no way to know what matter is made out of.
Matter is made of atoms. Atoms are in turn made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. Protons and Neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons, etc...
We very much know what matter is made out of...
You realize I am getting at the smallest detail. That we do not know exactly the detail. We suppose and we assume certain things, but we can never truly know. I used matter because most normal people don't know anything smaller than atoms. Smaller than quarks and gluons. Keep going until you get to something so small that the human eye just has to assume its there. Science is based on assumptions, that are assumed facts. Such as our existence. We assume that the theories are correct as they are theories. Not laws. We assume that laws are correct. Those are assumptions. As a simple math error which is entirely possible from a human perspective could show that all of our science would be incorrect. I am not joking here. There are some things we have to assume are correct or otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere. As human error can happen. Humanity is perfect and as such, all logic from the human race is incorrect.
We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program.
No, we know that we exist because we are here and can experience each other and the universe around us and have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would suggest any of the mumbo jumbo that you are sprouting.
Actually wrong. We don't know. We can't know. Knowing is in a higher state of being than we can accomplish. We can never truely know anything. We only think we now.
Asherian Command wrote: God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.
No, this is a false premise. God doesn't exist because there isn't a single shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a being that could be classified as god anywhere in the universe. Just because you can make something up doesn't mean that that something is suddenly real when there is 0 evidence to back up its existence.
If there isn't a shred for evidence on either side? Then is it not reasonably to conclude that there is a possibilty for it's existance? I mean we said the same thing about certain elements of matter. We said that it was impossible to go into space. We said AI was impossible to make. Now it does. Now we know certain objects exist that before we threw out the idea of.
God is an abstract concept that is outside the realm of science. Because we have no idea how to prove it.
That red is very painful for color blind people to read.
Also, you're still wrong. The reason why the "assumptions" we make in science aren't faith is because when something occurs to show us they're wrong, we change them to fit the new evidence.
The only thing that happens when you do that with faith is that the person gets angry and the "fact" becomes selectively allegory.
daedalus wrote: That red is very painful for color blind people to read.
Also, you're still wrong. The reason why the "assumptions" we make in science aren't faith is because when something occurs to show us they're wrong, we change them to fit the new evidence.
The only thing that happens when you do that with faith is that the person gets angry and the "fact" becomes selectively allegory.
Uhuh. So you're telling me that a fact. A Fact is something we assume to be truth. The Evidence does change, but the fact changes as well. But at a small amount is changed.
Read more into science and you will find that science is based with faith. You need to assume some facts and assumptions.
Soladrin wrote: Asherian, just because they are your "ideas" as you put it, doesn't make them right.
It makes it drivel from someone who clearly has no clue to what science is.
More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.
More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.
Well, THERE'S your problem... looking for "why is the sky blue" in a "why do we exist" book
That'd be like asking John Madden for advice to fix your sex life, and Dr. Phil for advice on who to pick for your fantasy football team
More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.
Well, THERE'S your problem... looking for "why is the sky blue" in a "why do we exist" book
That'd be like asking John Madden for advice to fix your sex life, and Dr. Phil for advice on who to pick for your fantasy football team
I'm not a scientist go figure. Philosophy talks about that quite often.
daedalus wrote: That red is very painful for color blind people to read.
Also, you're still wrong. The reason why the "assumptions" we make in science aren't faith is because when something occurs to show us they're wrong, we change them to fit the new evidence.
The only thing that happens when you do that with faith is that the person gets angry and the "fact" becomes selectively allegory.
Uhuh. So you're telling me that a fact. A Fact is something we assume to be truth. The Evidence does change, but the fact changes as well. But at a small amount is changed.
I... uh, yeah, facts are facts. We've established them to be true. If a fact turns out to be false, then I guess it wasn't a fact, right?
Read more into science and you will find that science is based with faith. You need to assume some facts and assumptions.
Yes, yes you do. A lot of times they're referred to as "models". The reason they're not "faith" though is because they change as new evidence proves them wrong.
Let me try this. Here's an example:
Science: The earth spins around the sun. Every astrological model pre-discovering this out was the opposite. It was an assumption we made. After we figured the truth out, we changed our models. The assumptions change based upon knowledge.
Faith: The world is 6000 years old. After we figured the truth out, the earth is still 6000 years old.
There are assumptions made in both, yes, but the difference is the purpose and lifespan of those assumptions. THAT'S why science isn't faith.
Soladrin wrote: Asherian, just because they are your "ideas" as you put it, doesn't make them right.
It makes it drivel from someone who clearly has no clue to what science is.
More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.
Yes in a way we can't be sure of anything at all. We don't know what the origin of the universe is.
We also don't need to know where the universe came from in order to know (To our best ability at this current time, subject to change) that gravity has a constant effect. If at some point that changes (Which it very well may, who knows?) we will have to update our facts to reflect that change in knowledge.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Yes in a way we can't be sure of anything at all. We don't know what the origin of the universe is.
We also don't need to know where the universe came from in order to know (To our best ability at this current time, subject to change) that gravity has a constant effect. If at some point that changes (Which it very well may, who knows?) we will have to update our facts to reflect that change in knowledge.
A fact is what we, to our ability, know.
Where I personally think that science CAN fall into that "faith" category is when we say "Gravity equals X" (obviously X being whatever mathematical equation spells out the force/effect of gravity on earth). Which is all well and good, but then they say, "using this same formula, we *know* that Mars has this much gravity compared to Earth's X, and Neptune has this other rate compared to ours" And yet, we've not been there to be able to physically measure this.
Obviously, where science differs from religion and faith, is if we DO end up setting foot on those planets, and it turns out the "Earth gravity formula" doesn't actually work, then new theories will be worked out, and the Truth of "Martian Gravity" or the Effect of Gravity on Uranus will come out and become better known.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Yes in a way we can't be sure of anything at all. We don't know what the origin of the universe is.
We also don't need to know where the universe came from in order to know (To our best ability at this current time, subject to change) that gravity has a constant effect. If at some point that changes (Which it very well may, who knows?) we will have to update our facts to reflect that change in knowledge.
A fact is what we, to our ability, know.
Where I personally think that science CAN fall into that "faith" category is when we say "Gravity equals X" (obviously X being whatever mathematical equation spells out the force/effect of gravity on earth). Which is all well and good, but then they say, "using this same formula, we *know* that Mars has this much gravity compared to Earth's X, and Neptune has this other rate compared to ours" And yet, we've not been there to be able to physically measure this.
Obviously, where science differs from religion and faith, is if we DO end up setting foot on those planets, and it turns out the "Earth gravity formula" doesn't actually work, then new theories will be worked out, and the Truth of "Martian Gravity" or the Effect of Gravity on Uranus will come out and become better known.
Uhuh, but we've now had our measuring tapes on multiple planetoids, including mars, and the theory still stands.
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Laughing Man wrote: Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
Laughing Man wrote: Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
Laughing Man wrote: Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
Laughing Man wrote: Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
Laughing Man wrote: Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
Laughing Man wrote: Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.
Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
hold on, wet licks? dry licks? do we allow time for the residual saliva to disolve some of the sugar, or does the next lick come immediately as the previous finishes? is that particular tongue rougher than usual? Is it a longer tonuge licking it (like I've seen people can touch their nose or chin), or do they struggle to get past their own lips? Was it humid or dry? I demand answers!
poda_t wrote: hold on, wet licks? dry licks? do we allow time for the residual saliva to disolve some of the sugar, or does the next lick come immediately as the previous finishes? is that particular tongue rougher than usual? Is it a longer tonuge licking it (like I've seen people can touch their nose or chin), or do they struggle to get past their own lips? Was it humid or dry? I demand answers!
They covered it!
There are many factors that would go into how many licks it takes such as:acidity of salivacoarseness of the tonguehow much amylase (enzymes) you have in your mouthDepends on how you lick it, below are some results Large licks:423 Small licks:752 There are several factors, needless to say, even if it's the same person counting, the # of licks will differ at each attempt. If you wanted to look at it semi-scientifically, the number of licks needed depend on these factors: * Pressure per square inch the tongue is applied to the surface of the tootsie pop (TP) * The average amount of square inch in contact between tongue and TP * At what measurement from the center of the stick of the TP at which you declare that you have reached the center of the TP. * The rotation factor of the TP - if the eater continues to lick one specific portion only to reach the center faster - or if licks are distributed evenly around the outer surface area of TP. And to a lesser extent: * Ambient temperature * Use of teeth / or lack of teeth of eater * Hunger of TP eater * Boredom of TP eater * Age of TP Lost count of licksRan out of timeAmount of saliva in the mouthThe lollipop expiredThe temptation was to great and you bite down and took a biteTongue size 1, 2, 3, CRUNCH! The world may never know…
Asherian Command is using the philosophy of Solipsism. It is a lovely idea that we cannot independently verify the evidence of our senses without using our senses. Thus, we could be quite mad and you all could be figments of someone's imagination.
It is an unassailable stance. It also doesn't change anything about our world, unless you choose to take it to the logical extreme and begin treating people as products of your imagination with no inherent worth.
Actually, it is totally appropriate for a thread dedicated to the god of unknowable numbers of birds.
Heh. Well, that is totally becoming a faction in my next RPG. Their emblem will be an optical illusion showing some number of birds.
Gitzbitah wrote: Asherian Command is using the philosophy of Solipsism. It is a lovely idea that we cannot independently verify the evidence of our senses without using our senses. Thus, we could be quite mad and you all could be figments of someone's imagination.
It is an unassailable stance. It also doesn't change anything about our world, unless you choose to take it to the logical extreme and begin treating people as products of your imagination with no inherent worth.
Actually, it is totally appropriate for a thread dedicated to the god of unknowable numbers of birds.
Heh. Well, that is totally becoming a faction in my next RPG. Their emblem will be an optical illusion showing some number of birds.
Gitzbitah wrote: Asherian Command is using the philosophy of Solipsism. It is a lovely idea that we cannot independently verify the evidence of our senses without using our senses. Thus, we could be quite mad and you all could be figments of someone's imagination.
It is an unassailable stance. It also doesn't change anything about our world, unless you choose to take it to the logical extreme and begin treating people as products of your imagination with no inherent worth.
Actually, it is totally appropriate for a thread dedicated to the god of unknowable numbers of birds.
Heh. Well, that is totally becoming a faction in my next RPG. Their emblem will be an optical illusion showing some number of birds.
Magicians who perform illusions. Come to think of it, they may just have to worship Gob, Lord of Unknowable numbers of birds. Complex Geometric Estimation, coin pile approximation, fortune telling, and ventriloquism-(multiple simultaneous bird calls) will al be features of the followers.
Gitzbitah wrote: Magicians who perform illusions. Come to think of it, they may just have to worship Gob, Lord of Unknowable numbers of birds. Complex Geometric Estimation, coin pile approximation, fortune telling, and ventriloquism-(multiple simultaneous bird calls) will al be features of the followers.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
You know I was just doing cheap shots at people just to make fun of the joke that this thread goes on and on.
Its my opinion you can accept it or not. But I have accepted it. But that is my opinion.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
My point is this: Ridiculing people for having different opinions is pointless. If you want them to change, that is the worst way to go about it.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
You know I was just doing cheap shots at people just to make fun of the joke that this thread goes on and on.
Its my opinion you can accept it or not. But I have accepted it. But that is my opinion.
Gitzbitah wrote: Magicians who perform illusions. Come to think of it, they may just have to worship Gob, Lord of Unknowable numbers of birds. Complex Geometric Estimation, coin pile approximation, fortune telling, and ventriloquism-(multiple simultaneous bird calls) will al be features of the followers.
Weapon of choice, cane?
Swords of destiny. Wet socks may be used in lieu of holy symbols.
Its my opinion you can accept it or not. But I have accepted it. But that is my opinion.
You can hold all the unsupported opinions you like, we just need to make sure they're picked apart so that no unsuspecting visitor to the thread ends up holding the same ones.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
My point is this: Ridiculing people for having different opinions is pointless. If you want them to change, that is the worst way to go about it.
Whilst I usually agree and follow this, today I am not.
Sometimes people hold pathetically stupid opinions and you just can't be arsed dealing with them rationally because they'll just go NUH UH.
And frankly pointing out/mocking their idiocy feels good, so when you're at the NUH UH stage, why bother otherwise?
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
You'll have to expound on your statement here, because at face value it's absolute garbage.
Science is based on observations of the natural, physical world.
Observations are based on human senses.
Senses are not always correct. So at face value they are incorrect. They are based on a human emotion and ideas so it is probably incorrect. So all things are based on assumptions that are senses are correct.
Hypothesis's are the very basis of science. The First hypothesis was based on faith. That your idea is correct and worth chasing.
Everyone gets Belief confused with Faith. It is an idea that people often forget about.
Human's must base their ideas on faith. They have to follow that gut feeling that they are on the right track. Faith is what drives us to do things.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
My point is this: Ridiculing people for having different opinions is pointless. If you want them to change, that is the worst way to go about it.
Whilst I usually agree and follow this, today I am not.
Sometimes people hold pathetically stupid opinions and you just can't be arsed dealing with them rationally because they'll just go NUH UH.
And frankly pointing out/mocking their idiocy feels good, so when you're at the NUH UH stage, why bother otherwise?
The NUH UH stage is extremely aggravating, but I think it's better just to walk away. By continuing you'll just make yourself more frustrated.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.
DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.
DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.
What? That's not my opinion. That part kind of made me think. Well someone is taking the theory far too seriously.
The fact this thread and its logic is circular despite it looking very rectangular on a screen is causing my head to spin.
I think this subject is done. We're not going to make headway arguing about perception, truth, science, and opinion in a thread that began with the OP stating his belief in God.
We could invest this energy in any of the other threads currently going on.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.
DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.
What? That's not my opinion. That part kind of made me think. Well someone is taking the theory far too seriously.
Wait, so you've repeatedly used it to try and claim science is based on faith, but it's now not your opinion when we point out how silly it is?
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
Well, that's why I instead went about establishing the differences between scientific models and faith. The problem here seems to be to me that he fails to realize that the basic senses aren't being accepted on faith. They're the ultimate caveat. They're the foundation for every scientific model we construct, subject to change if you're crazy enough to find a way to disprove them. Faith would mandate that they're inviolable, and then be done. If someone could prove 100% that our senses weren't accurate, then the science we've built using them would change to read "When using human senses... " before everything, and then we'd all go on proving things using whatever new method for proving things we used to prove that our senses were an illusion.
40k Wargamer wrote: I'm getting tired of the childish arguing in this thread. Why can't you try to understand someone else's point of view before ridiculing them?
Which other point of view would you like for people to try to understand? The logical fallacy of the OP or the argument that "nothing is real so science = faith"?
The science is based on faith. Not is faith.
Everything is based on faith.
No. Science is based on observational evidence, confirmed by repeated observations by different observers to eliminate uncertainty.
He's arguing that you're still accepting the validity of your senses on faith, because you could be insane or dreaming all of this.
I think he's abusing Parmenides a little much. Ultimately, the world may be an illusion, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game.
No, he's attempting to abuse something completely irrevelant and silly, I say attempt because no one's fooled.
Its an abstract idea that has to be read from Parmenides and other philosophers. If you don't it seems stupid and contrived.
DUDE WE LIVE IN THE MATRIX Will always sound stupid and contrived, no matter how long the writers beard was.
What? That's not my opinion. That part kind of made me think. Well someone is taking the theory far too seriously.
Wait, so you've repeatedly used it to try and claim science is based on faith, but it's now not your opinion when we point out how silly it is?
No because I am human I make mistakes. All my opinions are my opinions and I am a human being.
Humans have believed in stupid things. I am not saying that we are apart of matrix. I am saying there is a possiblity we may not exist and we may all be parts of our own imaginary worlds. Just different personalities within the mind.
So we have a flock of birds, number unknown but it's not a whole number? Did they fly through a wind farm?
Asherian, if all senses are based on faith, then your statement is inherently flawed from the start.
Your entire premise is based upon information supplied to you by your senses, so we have a paradoxical equation which can never be solved.
Your senses are flawed, you have stated this from information accumulated through your senses, but this information is flawed because the method is flawed.
AndrewC wrote: So we have a flock of birds, number unknown but it's not a whole number? Did they fly through a wind farm?
Asherian, if all senses are based on faith, then your statement is inherently flawed from the start.
Your entire premise is based upon information supplied to you by your senses, so we have a paradoxical equation which can never be solved.
Your senses are flawed, you have stated this from information accumulated through your senses, but this information is flawed because the method is flawed.
AndrewC wrote: So we have a flock of birds, number unknown but it's not a whole number? Did they fly through a wind farm?
Asherian, if all senses are based on faith, then your statement is inherently flawed from the start.
Your entire premise is based upon information supplied to you by your senses, so we have a paradoxical equation which can never be solved.
Your senses are flawed, you have stated this from information accumulated through your senses, but this information is flawed because the method is flawed.
I am referring to "God" as one or more intelligences responsible for creating the universe. This seems to be the common denominator among most religions, and it fits the description you provided as your concept of God.
Thank you for a clear and direct reply. Knowing that we are discussing the same concept from a similar perspective helps.
Though, you do reference religions. I propose that we keep religion out of the discussion of whether God exists or not. I'd rather stay on-topic and not get side tracked with dogma.
jasper 76 wrote:
Actually, science is painting a picture, which becomes clearer with every major discovery, that there is no creative intelligence behind the universe. If that is upsetting or takes some beauty out of your worldview, that's fine, but it is what it is. Science is a game of facts rather than feelings. I find it a bit surprising that you would classify an intelligence that evolved through natural selection as a God, as it shows a little lack of self-respect IMO since you came into being the exact same way. In any case, science is pointing toward a universe with no creative intelligence behind it, whether evolved or otherwise. Which is not to say that there is no God behind everything, only that it is improbable.
I understand your perspective as to the role & purpose that science
is playing in human society.
I disagree as to the entire purpose of science being to paint a picture.
Science has a long history of being the tool by which man attempts to destroy the notion of God.
The agenda to disprove the existence of God has been chronicled enough in the scientific community that we do not need to get bogged down by the subject.
We just need to understand the problem it creates.
A scientific community out to disprove the existence of God, violates the most basic principles of scientific methodology.
Basically, by setting out to disprove Gods existence the results are skewed. Just from a perspective standpoint it prevents the scientists from interpreting the data in an unbiased manner.
There are also those who seek to invalidate the existence of God via humanities assumption of divine power. That medical science seeks to gain the power of life and death, physicists seek the power to know and control all states of matter and energy.
The irony of all of this is that with every scientific break through where mankind gains more control over its future, the more likely that we will survive long enough to develop into a species or collective entity that has the power to create life and to control both matter and energy.
Heck, if we were able to reach another planet with a very primitive sentient species our current technology would make us seem to be Gods to them.
This is the stance of many scientists and sci-fi writers. That man survives through his descendants. Even if those offspring evolve into something different from homo sapiens.
That if mankind survives long enough, will eventually evolve into Gods entities.
Not saying that I fully subscribe to such a thought. Just that I can see the possibility.
Btw...You said something peculiar about my stance showing a lack of self-respect. Please to explain in a manner that is not as insulting as it sounds.
As to your last statement about science pointing to a universe with no creative intelligence behind it, again I disagree.
If we can foresee a point where man had mastered not only the human genome but the genomes of all life on earth,
If we can honestly look toward a future point where mankind has unlocked the mysteries matter and energy to where we can create what is needed at will
The we are looking at a future where our descendants are able to exercise god like power....then from our perspective they would be
Gods or a God entity
Now, I doubt that such descendants would call themselves Gods. Their Gods would be far beyond our concept pf a deity.
And yes, I am putting forward the idea that our perception of God grows and evolves as we grow and evolve as a species.
focusedfire wrote: A scientific community out to disprove the existence of God, violates the most basic principles of scientific methodology.
Science does not seek to disprove god - one cannot disprove a negative. Science is a tool used to learn about the universe; as a by product of that process there is less and less unknown for god to "hide" in. The ever shifting nature of god(s) nature as conveyed by religion and believers in pushing back god(s) to ever more remote parts of the universe demonstrates how furthering human understanding through scientific methodology does not actively disprove god (as mentioned, one cannot disprove a negative), simply makes it harder for those who claim god(s) exist to place them in the universe. We now have the gods of the major religions essentially not existing in our universe in order for them to have a place that cannot be examined by science and found, yet again, to contain no god(s), or even require god(s) in the first place.
Basically, by setting out to disprove Gods existence the results are skewed. Just from a perspective standpoint it prevents the scientists from interpreting the data in an unbiased manner.
Bias can certainly impact on science. However, I don't know of any scientific paper, certainly in the last 100 years, (in the pure sciences - not sure about psychology etc...) that actually attempts to prove or disprove god(s). Again, a by product of discovery and advancement of knowledge may be demonstrating the lack of need for god(s) in the universe but this is a far cry from people actively seeking out the non-existence of god(s) and biasing their work towards this goal.
There are also those who seek to invalidate the existence of God via humanities assumption of divine power. That medical science seeks to gain the power of life and death, physicists seek the power to know and control all states of matter and energy.
It is rather arrogant to assume that because power and abilities require hard work to achieve that mankind is somehow not worthy to posses it.
Heck, if we were able to reach another planet with a very primitive sentient species our current technology would make us seem to be Gods to them.
Which in no way suggests the existence of some original creator or guiding force, either for our small area of existence, or the universe as a whole. The redefinition of "god(s)" to include any species which is sufficiently advanced when discussing the wider universe is very much a case of moving the goalposts.
As to your last statement about science pointing to a universe with no creative intelligence behind it, again I disagree.
The we are looking at a future where our descendants are able to exercise god like power....then from our perspective they would be Gods or a God entity
No, it really wouldn't make them "god" or "gods". It would make them beings with power.
And yes, I am putting forward the idea that our perception of God grows and evolves as we grow and evolve as a species.
Indeed it does; not necessarily in the way you suggest however.
Maybe I'm full of gak for posting this, but I found this thing helpful.
Fact = believed by many, verifiable, example: average height of a Canadian male is 5 feet 9.5 inches
Faith = believed by many, non-verifiable, example: God created the universe
Opinion = believed by some, non-verifiable, example: "Scrubs" is not a very good show because it tells bad jokes
Preference = believed by one person, non-verifiable, example: Cheesecat likes Kit-Kat's more than Sour Keys
Senses are not always correct. So at face value they are incorrect. They are based on a human emotion and ideas so it is probably incorrect. So all things are based on assumptions that are senses are correct.
However, multiple humans observing the same thing see approximately the same thing. Whilst there is variation, there is also consistency. There may exist some "human" systematic bias but given we are human this would seem acceptable until such time as we can check our findings with something non-human, or non-human designed. So far the accepted observations of the universe appear to fit within the models and frameworks we have derived; there is currently no reason (particularly) to question the probability of them being correct because of the premise that senses are fallible so therefore nothing can truly be known.
Hypothesis's are the very basis of science. The First hypothesis was based on faith. That your idea is correct and worth chasing.
Actually the first hypothesis is that whatever you are testing has no affect on the output you are measuring - this is the null hypothesis.
Everyone gets Belief confused with Faith. It is an idea that people often forget about.
I believe that science tells us reasonably accurately about the universe. I do not require faith in order to believe. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on observation.
Human's must base their ideas on faith. They have to follow that gut feeling that they are on the right track. Faith is what drives us to do things.
Again, applying your preconceptions to human motivation is doomed to failure. Faith is not required to "believe" you are on the right track, nor is it required to drive us to do things. Unfortunately this is where metapsychology and philosophy fall down (in my opinion). You might say I have faith in my lack of faith in them
Btw...You said something peculiar about my stance showing a lack of self-respect. Please to explain in a manner that is not as insulting as it sounds.
I don't have time at the moment to respond to all of the points in your post (and besides others have responded as I would have), however I do want to respond to this.
All I meant by this is that if you would classify any hypothetical being that evolved by natural selection as a god or God because of their advanced state of technology or power, it would be the same as a caveman classifying us as gods because they'd be mesmerized by our technology. It would also assume that one form of life is "better" than another, but in evolutionary terms there is no species that is better or worse than another, only genes that confer a survival advantage or disadvantage, and this itself is a moving goal post because the conditions for survival change all the time. So plankton, ants, and us, we are all just expressions of genes that have evolved and survived. Because we have cars and medicine and rovers on Mars and so forth, we are still just evolved and evolving genetic expressions of DNA that have survived up to now, just like a sparrow or a minnow. And the same would be true of us and the "super-beings", for lack of a better word, that you describe (although likely it would not be a DNA-derived being that you describe if it was not from Earth). All just survivors in the game of natural selection.
jasper76 wrote: One time she told me the sky is blue because we live inside the eye of a blue-eyed giant named Makumba.
Maybe we do.
Maybe we are all the imaginations of a kid in a coma.
Or we are stuck in a paradox. Or a game show... Or a survivor series set up by aliens.
The world may never know.
Personally I think it's like the ending to the Men In Black II movie...
Its a paradoxical opinion no matter what you try to do the opinion is not wrong, It cannot be proven wrong, because you will be relying on your senses which we automatically assume are correct and not incorrect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Maybe I'm full of gak for posting this, but I found this thing helpful.
Fact = believed by many, verifiable, example: average height of a Canadian male is 5 feet 9.5 inches Faith = believed by many, non-verifiable, example: God created the universe Opinion = believed by some, non-verifiable, example: "Scrubs" is not a very good show because it tells bad jokes Preference = believed by one person, non-verifiable, example: Cheesecat likes Kit-Kat's more than Sour Keys
Faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. And then its second meaning strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. (The Belief part)
When I say faith I mean Trust and confidence. Not the religious idea. The same word just different meaning.
People often see the second definition as its true definition when I usually only refer to the first definition.
Senses are not always correct. So at face value they are incorrect. They are based on a human emotion and ideas so it is probably incorrect. So all things are based on assumptions that are senses are correct.
However, multiple humans observing the same thing see approximately the same thing. Whilst there is variation, there is also consistency. There may exist some "human" systematic bias but given we are human this would seem acceptable until such time as we can check our findings with something non-human, or non-human designed. So far the accepted observations of the universe appear to fit within the models and frameworks we have derived; there is currently no reason (particularly) to question the probability of them being correct because of the premise that senses are fallible so therefore nothing can truly be known.
Hypothesis's are the very basis of science. The First hypothesis was based on faith. That your idea is correct and worth chasing.
Actually the first hypothesis is that whatever you are testing has no affect on the output you are measuring - this is the null hypothesis.
Everyone gets Belief confused with Faith. It is an idea that people often forget about.
I believe that science tells us reasonably accurately about the universe. I do not require faith in order to believe. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on observation.
Human's must base their ideas on faith. They have to follow that gut feeling that they are on the right track. Faith is what drives us to do things.
Again, applying your preconceptions to human motivation is doomed to failure. Faith is not required to "believe" you are on the right track, nor is it required to drive us to do things. Unfortunately this is where metapsychology and philosophy fall down (in my opinion). You might say I have faith in my lack of faith in them
But your using your senses which you relatively in fact cannot accurately prove they are correct. So we at the very basic level have to have faith in our physical abilities.
So all science is based on this very basic assumption. So then science is based on assumption. As our senses cannot be tested to be accurate as there is no way to test them. So science is then not fact, but an assumption that assumes those basic sense are correct. So then yet again it is based on faith, not fact.
If you are not just trolling but really believe in all of that nonsense I advise you to see a psychiatrist as soon as possible since you seem to be displaying what are called as "bizarre delusions" and those can often be symptoms of a more severe illness.
Asherian Command wrote: But your using your senses which you relatively in fact cannot accurately prove they are correct. So we at the very basic level have to have faith in our physical abilities.
So all science is based on this very basic assumption. So then science is based on assumption. As our senses cannot be tested to be accurate as there is no way to test them. So science is then not fact, but an assumption that assumes those basic sense are correct. So then yet again it is based on faith, not fact.
However, taking your argument to its "logical" conclusion; since what our senses report is uncertain, any deductions based upon what they tell us is uncertain, including the assumption that our senses are uncertain.
The argument you put forward sounds nice and deep but in actual fact is about as valid and useful as a wet fart.
As mentioned, variation and consistency are known to exist and are measured. Regardless of the accuracy of our senses, observations can be shown to be accurate within our own human reference. Which is all that matters for science, without the need for faith.
Nope, Wrong......... O, do I need to show why I think you are wrong. Read on and I will show you.
You'll have to expound on your statement here, because at face value it's absolute garbage.
Science is based on observations of the natural, physical world.
Observations are based on human senses.
This is not always true. A lot of our observations are now done with configured instruments which give readouts. These are collected using many types of instruments, none of which are human. Now it takes a human with senses to read this data, and more to analys and interpet, but getting data is not based on human senses, otherwise how could we know about microwaves, as human cannot sense these.
Senses are not always correct. So at face value they are incorrect. They are based on a human emotion and ideas so it is probably incorrect. So all things are based on assumptions that are senses are correct
All things are based on assumptions! Do you know anything about the history of in science? A lot of our discoveries were not what was being looked for, it was looking at the data and trying to make sense of it. The more data, the closer to true our
Hypothesis's are the very basis of science. The First hypothesis was based on faith. That your idea is correct and worth chasing
Do you know what the first Hypothesis was? No, but you are saying it was based on faith. Strange as most hypothesis are there to be tested. This could mean that it was a false hypothesis, was tested and found to be false, this would still have been a good experiment and it proved the hypothesis was wrong, which is a good thing in science.
Everyone gets Belief confused with Faith. It is an idea that people often forget about..
I think what if wrongis that people get Faith confused with Faith.
from the OED
Faith
Noun
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:
Human's must base their ideas on faith. They have to follow that gut feeling that they are on the right track. Faith is what drives us to do things.
Humans to me (opinion) base their ideas on faith and on faith. The first faith is the one tested by science, which is why you get on a plane to fly. This is the type of faith youonly have with something after science testing, and the type which makes the world opperate. The second is what religious people have, and it's either not been tested, can't be tested, or more likely have been tested and proved to be false, but they have faith in it anyway.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
So you saw 1 < Birds < 10 where Birds is an integer. Therefore you must have seen either 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 birds but your conscious mind didn't count them fast enough.
Next time I suggest having a vision of a high frame rate camera photographing the birds. Then you can look at the pictures and see how many birds there are.
Your brain is subconsciously capable of solving differential equations. It can count birds.
Asherian Command wrote: But your using your senses which you relatively in fact cannot accurately prove they are correct. So we at the very basic level have to have faith in our physical abilities.
So all science is based on this very basic assumption. So then science is based on assumption. As our senses cannot be tested to be accurate as there is no way to test them. So science is then not fact, but an assumption that assumes those basic sense are correct. So then yet again it is based on faith, not fact.
However, taking your argument to its "logical" conclusion; since what our senses report is uncertain, any deductions based upon what they tell us is uncertain, including the assumption that our senses are uncertain.
The argument you put forward sounds nice and deep but in actual fact is about as valid and useful as a wet fart.
As mentioned, variation and consistency are known to exist and are measured. Regardless of the accuracy of our senses, observations can be shown to be accurate within our own human reference. Which is all that matters for science, without the need for faith.
But the question really is do you trust your data? Do you have faith in it? If you do. then Science is based on faith.
If you are not just trolling but really believe in all of that nonsense I advise you to see a psychiatrist as soon as possible since you seem to be displaying what are called as "bizarre delusions" and those can often be symptoms of a more severe illness.
And thats where I draw the line. I get attacking people on the internet for their beliefs is a grand ole ploy. But you need to learn one thing. Read the Dakka Forum rules before posting. You cannot say that here, this is a reasonable discussion. People have opinions. If you do not agree with those opinions you ignore them. But banter like this has no place on a reasonable discussion forum.
Asherian Command wrote: But your using your senses which you relatively in fact cannot accurately prove they are correct. So we at the very basic level have to have faith in our physical abilities.
So all science is based on this very basic assumption. So then science is based on assumption. As our senses cannot be tested to be accurate as there is no way to test them. So science is then not fact, but an assumption that assumes those basic sense are correct. So then yet again it is based on faith, not fact.
However, taking your argument to its "logical" conclusion; since what our senses report is uncertain, any deductions based upon what they tell us is uncertain, including the assumption that our senses are uncertain.
The argument you put forward sounds nice and deep but in actual fact is about as valid and useful as a wet fart.
As mentioned, variation and consistency are known to exist and are measured. Regardless of the accuracy of our senses, observations can be shown to be accurate within our own human reference. Which is all that matters for science, without the need for faith.
But the question really is do you trust your data? Do you have faith in it? If you do. then Science is based on faith.
I don't need to have faith in my data. I know the accuracy of my data to decimal points. In the case of experiments at CERN we can know the accuracy of results to 99.999999% or thereabouts.
I have confidence in the accuracy of the data I have gathered. That is not the same as religious faith.
Nope, Wrong......... O, do I need to show why I think you are wrong. Read on and I will show you.
You'll have to expound on your statement here, because at face value it's absolute garbage.
Science is based on observations of the natural, physical world.
Observations are based on human senses.
This is not always true. A lot of our observations are now done with configured instruments which give readouts. These are collected using many types of instruments, none of which are human. Now it takes a human with senses to read this data, and more to analys and interpet, but getting data is not based on human senses, otherwise how could we know about microwaves, as human cannot sense these.
Senses are not always correct. So at face value they are incorrect. They are based on a human emotion and ideas so it is probably incorrect. So all things are based on assumptions that are senses are correct
All things are based on assumptions! Do you know anything about the history of in science? A lot of our discoveries were not what was being looked for, it was looking at the data and trying to make sense of it. The more data, the closer to true our
Hypothesis's are the very basis of science. The First hypothesis was based on faith. That your idea is correct and worth chasing
Do you know what the first Hypothesis was? No, but you are saying it was based on faith. Strange as most hypothesis are there to be tested. This could mean that it was a false hypothesis, was tested and found to be false, this would still have been a good experiment and it proved the hypothesis was wrong, which is a good thing in science.
Everyone gets Belief confused with Faith. It is an idea that people often forget about..
I think what if wrongis that people get Faith confused with Faith. from the OED Faith Noun 1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something: 2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:
Human's must base their ideas on faith. They have to follow that gut feeling that they are on the right track. Faith is what drives us to do things.
Humans to me (opinion) base their ideas on faith and on faith. The first faith is the one tested by science, which is why you get on a plane to fly. This is the type of faith youonly have with something after science testing, and the type which makes the world opperate. The second is what religious people have, and it's either not been tested, can't be tested, or more likely have been tested and proved to be false, but they have faith in it anyway.
Correct. And I have provided a definition for it. I prefer to use the first definition. The one in which i trust. Which is assumption. (a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.) We cannot prove our senses to be true. Because if you like it or not human senses are still at work while using machines. That isn't a new sense. Its just using a sense in a different way.
Data is based on the assumption that our senses are correct. That they are true. That is what I am getting at. All we have to do is introduce one new sense to humanity and all the other sense's data becomes useless. And we have to basically start from square one. It is a theoretical argument that is had by philosophers for decades.
Now Do I think most of my senses are correct? Yes. Yes I do. Does this mean I think the whole theory is correct? No it has its flaws. But we can't say what is not real or is. We don't have the evidence to prove if certain things exist. Like I can't prove the existence of dark matter, wormholes, or a cold fusion. They are theoretical concepts that should exist. But we have no idea because we haven't seen it or studied it. Data can only provide us with so much. We have to observe it. But we base everything on our trust in our senses.
Our senses make science what it is today. It is a combination and the very basis of science was created from our senses. Which in turn is based on faith or Trust. So then over time we assume that it is true. We skip the step to prove our senses are correct, because it is a waste of time.
Lets say I am testing human reaction. If I Throw a basketball at you, are you going to check all your senses to see if they are working? No you'll catch it, or drop it if you have terrible eye-hand coordination. People skip the part about their senses because why should we test something so primal as our senses? We just assume they are correct, because we don't know of any other senses.
The thing is that people often take the name of science and confuse it with absolute fact, and just place religion with science. Which usually doesn't make any sense. Because science and religion are two worlds apart. Except one uses faith differently than the other. One relies on the senses, one does not. Religion relies on the assumption of a god existing, and Science proving what our senses find correct.
One progresses, one does not. Science in my opinion is an evolutionary step to something higher, something better. But we as humans should always be aware that some things we will never truly know for an absolute fact about. Science only answers the how, what, and when. Religion answers the why. How and why are extremely similar but not the same. Why is a philosophical question. Why is the sky blue? I have no idea! How is the sky blue? Look it up on google you'll find the answer, whether it is correct or not well thats up to you and how gullible you are.
I think people confuse the two because they are so similar.
Asherian Command wrote: But your using your senses which you relatively in fact cannot accurately prove they are correct. So we at the very basic level have to have faith in our physical abilities.
So all science is based on this very basic assumption. So then science is based on assumption. As our senses cannot be tested to be accurate as there is no way to test them. So science is then not fact, but an assumption that assumes those basic sense are correct. So then yet again it is based on faith, not fact.
However, taking your argument to its "logical" conclusion; since what our senses report is uncertain, any deductions based upon what they tell us is uncertain, including the assumption that our senses are uncertain.
The argument you put forward sounds nice and deep but in actual fact is about as valid and useful as a wet fart.
As mentioned, variation and consistency are known to exist and are measured. Regardless of the accuracy of our senses, observations can be shown to be accurate within our own human reference. Which is all that matters for science, without the need for faith.
But the question really is do you trust your data? Do you have faith in it? If you do. then Science is based on faith.
I don't need to have faith in my data. I know the accuracy of my data to decimal points. In the case of experiments at CERN we can know the accuracy of results to 99.999999% or thereabouts.
I have confidence in the accuracy of the data I have gathered. That is not the same as religious faith.
Nothing in science is ever taken on "faith".
I am not talking about the religious faith.
But the trust faith.
I am not comparing science to religion. Though they have similarities.
Asherian Command wrote: Science only answers the how, what, and when. Religion answers the why. How and why are extremely similar but not the same. Why is a philosophical question. Why is the sky blue? I have no idea! How is the sky blue? Look it up on google you'll find the answer, whether it is correct or not well thats up to you and how gullible you are.
I think people confuse the two because they are so similar.
Hopefully I've explained it better.
This is absolute rubbish.
Why does the Earth orbit the Sun? Because the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth and the Earth's rotational momentum cause it to.
How does the Earth Orbit the sun? In an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus.
Why and How are both scientific questions. In science we first ask how something happens then work out why.
Asherian Command wrote: Science only answers the how, what, and when. Religion answers the why. How and why are extremely similar but not the same. Why is a philosophical question. Why is the sky blue? I have no idea! How is the sky blue? Look it up on google you'll find the answer, whether it is correct or not well thats up to you and how gullible you are.
I think people confuse the two because they are so similar.
Hopefully I've explained it better.
This is absolute rubbish.
Why does the Earth orbit the Sun? Because the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth and the Earth's rotational momentum cause it to.
How does the Earth Orbit the sun? In an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus.
Why and How are both scientific questions. In science we first ask how something happens then work out why.
Interesting use of the word why.
But Why does it? Why would it? Why would the earth orbit the sun? Why was it put there? Why do you think it works like that?
Once you got down deep enough there are too many questions to be asked. One you answer one why, twenty more begin anew. ITs just the combination of what is beyond the word.
Now I am not saying all whys are like that. Some like you have provided are like that. They are scientific. But certain whys are phisophical they are beyond science's answers.
I am not comparing science to religion. Though they have similarities.
You still haven't addressed that our ability to perform science isn't based upon faith that our senses are accurate, but on the understanding that the science is accurate as long as our senses are.
Again, once something disproves our senses, we can use whatever that is to do other, more accurate science with the understanding that within the scope of our senses, everything else we know is still accurate also, within the scope of that illusion, is still accurate.
You keep screaming "we can't trust our senses. we have no way to verify them, science is based on that faith." It's not completely true. It's based on something we can't prove at a fundamental level, yes, but duh. It's not faith though, it's the default hypothesis, because there's no other way to function. You have to establish a foundation to your model before you can establish other things to be true within that model. That's all anyone's ever doing.
Only in the broadest, most sophistic sense can you call that faith. It cannot be, because we assert it to be a caveat. As long as this one thing is true, science is true. We don't trust it, we live with it and try not to turn our backs on it.
Asherian Command wrote: Science only answers the how, what, and when. Religion answers the why. How and why are extremely similar but not the same. Why is a philosophical question. Why is the sky blue? I have no idea! How is the sky blue? Look it up on google you'll find the answer, whether it is correct or not well thats up to you and how gullible you are.
I think people confuse the two because they are so similar.
Hopefully I've explained it better.
This is absolute rubbish.
Why does the Earth orbit the Sun? Because the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth and the Earth's rotational momentum cause it to.
How does the Earth Orbit the sun? In an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus.
Why and How are both scientific questions. In science we first ask how something happens then work out why.
Interesting use of the word why.
But Why does it? Why would it? Why would the earth orbit the sun? Why was it put there? Why do you think it works like that?
Once you got down deep enough there are too many questions to be asked. One you answer one why, twenty more begin anew. ITs just the combination of what is beyond the word.
Now I am not saying all whys are like that. Some like you have provided are like that. They are scientific. But certain whys are phisophical they are beyond science's answers.
Uh... You're asking questions that can, again, can be answered scientifically.
The Earth orbits the Sun because the Earth is caught in the Sun's gravity well. The Earth wasn't 'placed' anywhere. It just happened to form from enough space debris colliding into each other to make something dense enough to attract more space debris, and continued to do so. We know it works that way because we have the mathematics to prove it.
If you are not just trolling but really believe in all of that nonsense I advise you to see a psychiatrist as soon as possible since you seem to be displaying what are called as "bizarre delusions" and those can often be symptoms of a more severe illness.
And thats where I draw the line. I get attacking people on the internet for their beliefs is a grand ole ploy. But you need to learn one thing. Read the Dakka Forum rules before posting. You cannot say that here, this is a reasonable discussion. People have opinions. If you do not agree with those opinions you ignore them. But banter like this has no place on a reasonable discussion forum.
Its not banter, you seem to be replacing reality with some figment of your imagination, saying things like "We really can't prove we are alive or dead, or that anything could be an elaborate hoax created by our mind." or "Maybe we are all the imaginations of a kid in a coma." or "Or we are stuck in a paradox. Or a game show... Or a survivor series set up by aliens.".
Those all imply a very serious negation of the reality that surrounds you. This is an actual proven medical condition called "bizarre delusions":
I'm not bantering and you really have me worried and I truly believe that if you actually believe any of those things then you should seek professional help ASAP.
Asherian Command wrote: Science only answers the how, what, and when. Religion answers the why. How and why are extremely similar but not the same. Why is a philosophical question. Why is the sky blue? I have no idea! How is the sky blue? Look it up on google you'll find the answer, whether it is correct or not well thats up to you and how gullible you are.
I think people confuse the two because they are so similar.
Hopefully I've explained it better.
This is absolute rubbish.
Why does the Earth orbit the Sun? Because the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth and the Earth's rotational momentum cause it to.
How does the Earth Orbit the sun? In an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus.
Why and How are both scientific questions. In science we first ask how something happens then work out why.
Interesting use of the word why.
But Why does it? Why would it? Why would the earth orbit the sun? Why was it put there? Why do you think it works like that?
Once you got down deep enough there are too many questions to be asked. One you answer one why, twenty more begin anew. ITs just the combination of what is beyond the word.
Now I am not saying all whys are like that. Some like you have provided are like that. They are scientific. But certain whys are phisophical they are beyond science's answers.
Because there was a big cloud of dust and gas, left over from the supernovae of a star. Gravity pulled that cloud together until there was enough mass and pressure to ignite a fusion reaction which created the Sun. The remaining dust then started to spin around the sun due to momentum and gravity and slowly clumped together (again, due to gravity) and formed the planets.
I think it works like that because we can see it working like that. We can observe Galaxies light years away and see these effects, we can model them in labs, run simulations based on laws which are established fact. We've known how the Earth orbits the sun since the early 17th century when Kepler published his three Laws. We've known why since the mid 17th century when Newton published the Law of Universal Gravitation in the Principia.
I am not comparing science to religion. Though they have similarities.
You still haven't addressed that our ability to perform science isn't based upon faith that our senses are accurate, but on the understanding that the science is accurate as long as our senses are.
Again, once something disproves our senses, we can use whatever that is to do other, more accurate science with the understanding that within the scope of our senses, everything else we know is still accurate also, within the scope of that illusion, is still accurate.
You keep screaming "we can't trust our senses. we have no way to verify them, science is based on that faith." It's not completely true. It's based on something we can't prove at a fundamental level, yes, but duh. It's not faith though, it's the default hypothesis, because there's no other way to function. You half to establish a foundation to your model before you can establish other things to be true within that model. That's all anyone's ever doing.
Only in the broadest, most sophistic sense can you call that faith.
Interesting. Read my other one. I say at the fundamental level. And thats all I am addressing.
People here are taking my idea that science is based on faith to a different level. That every part of science is based on faith. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that science is based on faith. The very basis of science that is. The very core, the very foundation of it is based on faith. That is all I am saying. I have addressed several times that a new sense would prove this theory to a degree.
And yes I am use the broadest definition of it. Because if we get to specific it will only become a paradox. And those aren't really fun for anyone as we would be stuck discussing this for the rest of our lives.
Though I'll take that idea and try to imply it to the definition. As most times we often forget about the base of science is based on certain human elements. Which sometimes we cannot always completely trust. Which people often do.
Asherian Command wrote: Science only answers the how, what, and when. Religion answers the why. How and why are extremely similar but not the same. Why is a philosophical question. Why is the sky blue? I have no idea! How is the sky blue? Look it up on google you'll find the answer, whether it is correct or not well thats up to you and how gullible you are.
I think people confuse the two because they are so similar.
Hopefully I've explained it better.
This is absolute rubbish.
Why does the Earth orbit the Sun? Because the gravitational pull of the Sun and Earth and the Earth's rotational momentum cause it to.
How does the Earth Orbit the sun? In an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus.
Why and How are both scientific questions. In science we first ask how something happens then work out why.
Interesting use of the word why.
But Why does it? Why would it? Why would the earth orbit the sun? Why was it put there? Why do you think it works like that?
Once you got down deep enough there are too many questions to be asked. One you answer one why, twenty more begin anew. ITs just the combination of what is beyond the word.
Now I am not saying all whys are like that. Some like you have provided are like that. They are scientific. But certain whys are phisophical they are beyond science's answers.
Uh... You're asking questions that can, again, can be answered scientifically.
The Earth orbits the Sun because the Earth is caught in the Sun's gravity well. The Earth wasn't 'placed' anywhere. It just happened to form from enough space debris colliding into each other to make something dense enough to attract more space debris, and continued to do so. We know it works that way because we have the mathematics to prove it.
But why? You keep avoiding the question. Why does it? Why was it created?
You keep saying that science can, but it can't. There is no possible reason to know why. But mathematics could be wrong in this case. Mathematics can't answer philisophical questions.
Yet I wasn't getting at science, I said there are certain philsophical why's that can't be answered.
Now rethink this. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Now before you answer because of the gravity of the sun. Think about it again. Why does it? Why does the sun have gravity.
Remove scientific thinking and think philisophically. Why would it oribit it? Why does it exist? Why does gravity exist? Why does the earth exist? Why does this do that? Remove all scientific theories of other human beings and try to come up with your own philsiophical reason as to why? Soon enough you'll find you really can't answer them.
You cannot reasonably say why the earth orbits the sun. Why the earth was created.
If you are not just trolling but really believe in all of that nonsense I advise you to see a psychiatrist as soon as possible since you seem to be displaying what are called as "bizarre delusions" and those can often be symptoms of a more severe illness.
And thats where I draw the line. I get attacking people on the internet for their beliefs is a grand ole ploy. But you need to learn one thing. Read the Dakka Forum rules before posting. You cannot say that here, this is a reasonable discussion. People have opinions. If you do not agree with those opinions you ignore them. But banter like this has no place on a reasonable discussion forum.
Its not banter, you seem to be replacing reality with some figment of your imagination, saying things like "We really can't prove we are alive or dead, or that anything could be an elaborate hoax created by our mind." or "Maybe we are all the imaginations of a kid in a coma." or "Or we are stuck in a paradox. Or a game show... Or a survivor series set up by aliens.".
Those all imply a very serious negation of the reality that surrounds you. This is an actual proven medical condition called "bizarre delusions":
I'm not bantering and you really have me worried and I truly believe that if you actually believe any of those things then you should seek professional help ASAP.
Or you know I am just asking questions and providing examples. I believe that we cannot possibly know for certainty that we live in a reality. We can't really know, because knowing would mean we would be insane. Knowing is an absolute, an awareness we can't ever reach, because we are human. The answer is we don't know, we can only ever think we know. We cannot know. There is no absolute knowing. I only have faith that I do not live in them.
Its called reading, and many theorists have those ideas as well.
The human mind is not made for certain ideas because it is beyond comprehension.
And I find it an insult you try to insinuate that I have mental problems.
Asherian Command wrote: Why does the earth orbit the sun? Now before you answer because of the gravity of the sun. Think about it again. Why does it? Why does the sun have gravity.
Because the sun has mass. And before you ask why does the sun have mass, it's because of the Higgs field created by the Higgs Boson. As to why that is, Science is working on it. Philosophy is not.
Remove scientific thinking and think philisophically. Why would it oribit it? Why does it exist? Why does gravity exist? Why does the earth exist? Why does this do that? Remove all scientific theories of other human beings and try to come up with your own philsiophical reason as to why? Soon enough you'll find you really can't answer them.
You cannot reasonably say why the earth orbits the sun. Why the earth was created.
That is where I am getting at.
So we can't answer these questions when we think "philosophically" yet have no trouble answering them by scientific thought and the scientific process?
Asherian Command wrote: Why does the earth orbit the sun? Now before you answer because of the gravity of the sun. Think about it again. Why does it? Why does the sun have gravity.
Because the sun has mass. And before you ask why does the sun have mass, it's because of the Higgs field created by the Higgs Boson. As to why that is, Science is working on it. Philosophy is not.
Remove scientific thinking and think philisophically. Why would it oribit it? Why does it exist? Why does gravity exist? Why does the earth exist? Why does this do that? Remove all scientific theories of other human beings and try to come up with your own philsiophical reason as to why? Soon enough you'll find you really can't answer them.
You cannot reasonably say why the earth orbits the sun. Why the earth was created.
That is where I am getting at.
So we can't answer these questions when we think "philosophically" yet have no trouble answering them by scientific thought and the scientific process?
Obviously your not a fan of philosophy. Which is completely different from science. (To a degree)
It is the art of figuring it out with your own reasonable conclusions. And we can't answer all of them. that is not what science does. Science doesn't care about why it works a certain way and not another. Because we believe it is correct in its assertion. Which might be proven false. (give or take, we never truly know if it will change in the future)
Asherian Command wrote: Why does the earth orbit the sun? Now before you answer because of the gravity of the sun. Think about it again. Why does it? Why does the sun have gravity.
Because the sun has mass. And before you ask why does the sun have mass, it's because of the Higgs field created by the Higgs Boson. As to why that is, Science is working on it. Philosophy is not.
Remove scientific thinking and think philisophically. Why would it oribit it? Why does it exist? Why does gravity exist? Why does the earth exist? Why does this do that? Remove all scientific theories of other human beings and try to come up with your own philsiophical reason as to why? Soon enough you'll find you really can't answer them.
You cannot reasonably say why the earth orbits the sun. Why the earth was created.
That is where I am getting at.
So we can't answer these questions when we think "philosophically" yet have no trouble answering them by scientific thought and the scientific process?
Obviously your not a fan of philosophy. Which is completely different from science. (To a degree)
It is the art of figuring it out with your own reasonable conclusions. And we can't answer all of them. that is not what science does. Science doesn't care about why it works a certain way and not another. Because we believe it is correct in its assertion. Which might be proven false. (give or take, we never truly know if it will change in the future)
Wrong. Science definitely does care as to why it works one way and not another because once you know that, you know more about how the universe works than you did before.
The main problem is when someone mentions that Science is based on faith, and that religion is based on faith.
Then going and saying that definition one of faith is what they mean by faith, but never saying what they think religion is based on.
This is why people who try to understand science can get annoyed, as equating science with religion, saying they are both based on faith is just not true.
This is why you have to say you are meaning a different type of faith, or just don't use the word faith when relating to science, as we don't have faith in it, we have confidnence due to it working and having been tested, which we cannot say about any religion or religious book, god, gods or even the philisophical god. what can be falseified has been, and what can't is not needed.
chocmushroom wrote: The main problem is when someone mentions that Science is based on faith, and that religion is based on faith.
Then going and saying that definition one of faith is what they mean by faith, but never saying what they think religion is based on.
This is why people who try to understand science can get annoyed, as equating science with religion, saying they are both based on faith is just not true.
This is why you have to say you are meaning a different type of faith, or just don't use the word faith when relating to science, as we don't have faith in it, we have confidnence due to it working and having been tested, which we cannot say about any religion or religious book, god, gods or even the philisophical god. what can be falseified has been, and what can't is not needed.
I think I have made that difference known. People just see it and go haywire at the very mention of it and look past the arguments I have given. One part just makes them go what and they just ignore parts of the sentence that actually explain it.
Belief is the term I would coin for religion. And faith for science. Faith is trust or confidence in someone or something. Belief is beyond that it is complete confidence without evidence or idea of how or why. They just see it and think yeah I believe in that. There is no proof but so what?
The current mindset is people often associate faith with only religion and forget all words have multiple meanings. They only take one or another. If I call something gay. Like i say that couple looks quite gay. What am I saying? I think that couple looks quite homosexual? Or do I mean that couple looks happy? I would like to think they look happy. And when someone calls me gay, I take it as a compliment. "You think I am happy? Well I hope your gay too! Now lets skip and dance down the road together, while singing Yankee doodle!"
The thing is people often forget the meanings of the word. They try and study a certain aspect but forget to take a step back and think. What is the true meaning. If I ask for something like a why statement. From context clues you should probably assume I am not asking a scientific question. I am not a scientist. Nor will I claim to be ever again. But I believe in science, that science is the future of all life.
I believe the singularity is possible, yet I don't have a shred of proof of it being available (as of yet, if there is an article on that, bring it on! I would love to read it). Sometimes we just have to believe in certain things. That is what humans do. We act unreasonable in certain situations. Some of us believe in a god of some great power, some of us believe in fate, some of us believe in a better world, and some of us have the belief that science is the way forward. And then there are some of us that believe in everything that, everything in combination could help the world become a better place.
It is fought over again and again to see if we humans really do know everything, People like me say we can't know for an absolute fact of all things to be true. That we are only human and we only think that we know. That human beings are currently to primitive to truly know anything, until another evolutionary stage happens that allows us to develop another sense, or we able to prove it without data, but through another intelligence that is not our own. Then there are the people who don't about absolutes and use absolutes because they don't understand their meaning. But then there are the scientists avoid absolutes and only wish to study science. And so and so forth.
Human beings are unique creatures.
So you can believe in god, You can have faith in science, just don't force it down other peoples throats because you want them to be the same to you. You can discuss it, you can show them what you are trying to say. But do not be a forceful hand.
If you want a logical link well: I am Wiccan. I am also a practising witch. A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00.
That spell, you must teach me. I want to conjure money too. I need it.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind. 3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. 5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
I kant see why you'd think so.
I think it's pretty on the marx.
Spoiler:
He sees what you did there. He thinks you should putin some more effort into your puns
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
I kant see why you'd think so.
I think it's pretty on the marx.
Spoiler:
He sees what you did there.
He thinks you should putin some more effort into your puns
Soladrin wrote: Kay, I'll bite, what practical use does philosophy have in our current western world?
Inspiring people to think differently on problems. Seeing multiple sides to a problem.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)
It is about looking at something critically, and knowing what is ethical and what is not. A single problem occurs and one needs to see it rationally.
Lets look at abortion. What would you do to change it. What are the arguments against it? For it? you look at the too, and you dissect the situation. What is main purpose of Abortion? It is a way out for women, where men can leave at any time. A woman without abortion has no way to get out of a pregnancy unless she aborts. There are emotional and physically problems that can happen either way. What is the best course of action to take? What should this woman do?
Philisophy is a dissection of a problem. A fundamental problem. With the more problems that arise the more you have to dissect it. There are always two sides to a problem. Maybe three or four. We can't all rush to one side because someone says so. You have to think rationally.
Soladrin wrote: Kay, I'll bite, what practical use does philosophy have in our current western world?
Formulating questions, providing critical thinking and ethics and much much more. A society can not function without philosophy. Science would be impossible without it. Most scientific truths once started out as philosophical questions. We would never have had the whole theory about gravity if someone had never wondered why objects are always pulled to the ground. Asking what the use of philosophy is is like asking what the use of learning and understanding is. It is actually quite ironic that questioning the use of philosophy is philosophy in itself.
welshhoppo wrote: Bringing up philosophy in a modern western culture instantly causes people to believe that you are a bumbling idiot.
Yeah, there are certain philisophies that I look at think. "Really? What? Thats kind of ehem dumb."
(I.E. Ethical Egoism, coined in Atlas Shrugged and shown in Bioshock the Video Game)
But yes all science has to pay respects to philosophers for kicking the door down for science.
Fair enough, and mind you, I was not trying to say that it didn't pave the road to where we are now. It's just that most things included in philosophy have now become what is known as science. Critical thinking and assesment of a problem seems to be the main recurring point and these are both integral parts of modern science. Hence why I say what current practical use is left for it.
I guess the only real thing left for it is ethics, critical thinking is not something unique to it. Mind you, I do enjoy philosophy and often listen to debates while at work.
Actually, I think he's right. Everything he's said. The parts about everything being an illusion. His definitions and use of "faith". It's all right and makes perfect sense.
I mean, you can't prove even simple things because you don't actually know what things actually are. You think you do, but it could be false. The sum of all human knowledge could just be a lie, because we only have the sum of human knowledge to prove it. It's all just something we blindly accept.
Though that is all kind of like saying alchemy has a place in modern science because it was the origin of chemistry.
One does not require philosophy to look at the world and question it and determine meaning. Even ethics does not require philosophy although commonly it is debated using emotive language and philosophical reasoning.
SilverMK2 wrote: Though that is all kind of like saying alchemy has a place in modern science because it was the origin of chemistry.
One does not require philosophy to look at the world and question it and determine meaning. Even ethics does not require philosophy although commonly it is debated using emotive language and philosophical reasoning.
Thank you for making my point for me, I'm bad at talking today.
But why? You keep avoiding the question. Why does it? Why was it created?
Why does everything need a purpose for it's creation? The universe is mindless, things happen.
The spaghetti monster was created as Italians are quite clearly the chosen people of God, I mean look at the other option Jews, nope, they don't give us brilliance like cannelloni or pasta, no it's...gefilre fish and the more hardcore they go the worse the food gets. I rest my case.
But why? You keep avoiding the question. Why does it? Why was it created?
Why does everything need a purpose for it's creation? The universe is mindless, things happen.
The spaghetti monster was created as Italians are quite clearly the chosen people of God, I mean look at the other option Jews, nope, they don't give us brilliance like cannelloni or pasta, no it's...gefilre fish and the more hardcore they go the worse the food gets. I rest my case.
If we are judging religions by food wouldn't we all have to convert to Shinto?
The current mindset is people often associate faith with only religion and forget all words have multiple meanings. They only take one or another. If I call something gay. Like i say that couple looks quite gay. What am I saying? I think that couple looks quite homosexual? Or do I mean that couple looks happy? I would like to think they look happy. And when someone calls me gay, I take it as a compliment. "You think I am happy? Well I hope your gay too! Now lets skip and dance down the road together, while singing Yankee doodle!"
You mean she just meant I left my alarm clock on? OH THANK GOD!
SilverMK2 wrote: Though that is all kind of like saying alchemy has a place in modern science because it was the origin of chemistry.
One does not require philosophy to look at the world and question it and determine meaning. Even ethics does not require philosophy although commonly it is debated using emotive language and philosophical reasoning.
Yep. Though I think ethics is just a sub-root of philosophy.
But Alchemy is quite interesting in its desire to avoid certain scientific laws.
Would be funny to see if one day there would be people out there with high levels of technology who can shape any element known to man.
You mean she just meant I left my alarm clock on? OH THANK GOD!
I am a magician. Behold my power!
If we are judging religions by food wouldn't we all have to convert to Shinto?
I don't know about that but the Mayan's had the best hearts ever.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Simple, it's 9 birds and one bird missing a leg, thus resulting in 9.87 birds.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Simple, it's 9 birds and one bird missing a leg, thus resulting in 9.87 birds.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
I close my eyes and see darkness because my eyes are closed. I open them. I go do something else with my time.
Alright, the hell is going on in this thread? I've tried to follow and I'm just stupefied by everyone trying to disprove science or prove science as faith.
Someone call in the clean up crew from MIB and torch everything. I'll pull out the mind wipe ray.
jreilly89 wrote: Alright, the hell is going on in this thread? I've tried to follow and I'm just stupefied by everyone trying to disprove science or prove science as faith.
Someone call in the clean up crew from MIB and torch everything. I'll pull out the mind wipe ray.
jreilly89 wrote: Alright, the hell is going on in this thread? I've tried to follow and I'm just stupefied by everyone trying to disprove science or prove science as faith.
Someone call in the clean up crew from MIB and torch everything. I'll pull out the mind wipe ray.
Well its true mate.
science is not faith. faith is based on ignorance and claims to have all the answers. Science is based on empiricism and claims to have all of the questions. I consider you to be a child for making that erroneous assumption that science is a fiath driven initiative. Let me be clear with you. Flying planes into buildings, that's a faith based initiative. Preaching that use condoms don't stop the spread of venereal diseases is a faith based initiative. The christian-muslim tug of war that resulted in wholsalle butchery in the streets of jerusalem is a faith based initiative. Keep your petty faith away from my empiricism, and I won't point out how morally immature you are. Thanks.
Something people should consider since USA is made up entirely of foreigners.
. From that first response I tougt for a minute you were mocking me. 
