Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey I just used this video in another thread but I think it's got legs.

Works every time.

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.

Cheers

Andrew

 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.

Cheers

Andrew

Yeah! someone gets it!

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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.

Cheers

Andrew

Yeah! someone gets it!

Or do they. We can never know

 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.

Or the Matrix.

I'll worry about these speculations if and when any evidence for them materializes.

jasper76 wrote:

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.

Later,
ff

 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

 Asherian Command wrote:
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.

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

 focusedfire wrote:

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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...

 Leigen_Zero wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
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.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lots of nonsense...

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.

Everything is based on 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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lots of nonsense...

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:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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".

chocmushroom wrote:

Everything is based on 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.

Hopefully I've explained it better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I am not talking about the religious faith.

But the trust faith.

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:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lots of nonsense...

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":

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bizarre+delusion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894592/

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:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

 daedalus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

I am not talking about the religious faith.

But the trust faith.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

That is where I am getting at.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lots of nonsense...

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":

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bizarre+delusion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894592/

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?