|
|
Posted by tekriter
The key, for me, is that no one in the scientific community is asking me to believe anything supernatural.
Scientific method WELCOMES new evidence
Religion rejects new evidence
|
I quote you in 3 places.
In the first, i disagree... For many of the reasons i articulate in the post i submitted while you were still drafting your post.
In the second two, i agree. This is part of why i enjoy science as much as i do, and why i resist religious dogma.
Your reply is well reasoned and clear, so i have little in the way of rebuttal. I think we can simply agree to disagree on the larger points -- my willingness to consider supernatural agency, and your certainty that such agency is impossible.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
Faith in demonstrable evidence that explains phenomena and predicts accurate results is one thing.
Faith in something because some unknown multitude of people edited together some stories into a single book and said it was true is something else; Especially when it is not internally consistent, and relies upon no basis other than it's own assertions that it is true.
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Posted by MutantMandias
Faith in demonstrable evidence that explains phenomena and predicts accurate results is one thing.
|
i don't think it's faith at all, in that case. but i know what you mean certainly and prefer to place my trust in such things.
theoretical physics, particularly regarding the origins of the universe, does not necessarily deal with demonstrable evidence or accurately predicted results. assuming you read the recent posts in this thread, that seems self-apparent.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. | |
Posted by Aleksandar
assuming
|
You know what they say about assuming.
Edit to add something that I literally just stumbled across while surfing for porn:
First observational tests of eternal inflation: Analysis methods and WMAP 7-year results
In the picture of eternal inflation, our observable universe resides inside a single bubble nucleated from an inflating false vacuum. Many of the theories giving rise to eternal inflation predict that we have causal access to collisions with other bubble universes, providing an opportunity to confront these theories with observation. We present the results from the first observational search for the effects of bubble collisions, using cosmic microwave background data from the WMAP satellite. Our search targets a generic set of properties associated with a bubble collision spacetime, which we describe in detail. We use a modular algorithm that is designed to avoid a posteriori selection effects, automatically picking out the most promising signals, performing a search for causal boundaries, and conducting a full Bayesian parameter estimation and model selection analysis. We outline each component of this algorithm, describing its response to simulated CMB skies with and without bubble collisions. Comparing the results for simulated bubble collisions to the results from an analysis of the WMAP 7-year data, we rule out bubble collisions over a range of parameter space. Our model selection results based on WMAP 7-year data do not warrant augmenting LCDM with bubble collisions. Data from the Planck satellite can be used to more definitively test the bubble collision hypothesis.
[last edit 8/4/2011 11:04 PM by MutantMandias - edited 1 times]
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Posted by Aleksandar
Your reply is well reasoned and clear, so i have little in the way of rebuttal.
|
Likewise, and I appreciate your reasoned tone.
Posted by Aleksandar
I think we can simply agree to disagree on the larger points -- my willingness to consider supernatural agency, and your certainty that such agency is impossible.
|
I never agree to disagree. My temperament is much more argumentative. I think you misrepresent my position in a fundamental way: I do not suggest any certainty. I accept the possibility, and would happily accept any evidence to prove it.
I do, however, assert that the existence of god is very unlikely, as unlikely as all the other random alternatives that cannot be proved to not exist.
The dogmatic god of abraham, allah or any other human construct of superstition is even more unlikely to exist.
But the only honest intellectual position is to admit that the possibility, however slight, exists.
http://www.allabou...hy.org/atheism.htm
"To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge."
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by Aleksandar
i don't think it's faith at all, in that case. but i know what you mean certainly and prefer to place my trust in such things.
theoretical physics, particularly regarding the origins of the universe, does not necessarily deal with demonstrable evidence or accurately predicted results. assuming you read the recent posts in this thread, that seems self-apparent.
|
From Merriam Webster:
Faith:
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
#2 b is the key here, and the definition I accept with regards to knowledge.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Knowledge is a justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat.
Good article on the nature of belief:
http://exploring-l...ef-realm-evidence/
[last edit 8/5/2011 1:23 PM by tekriter - edited 1 times]
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Holy blasphemy Batman!
Where have you been?? Atheist crusades?
https://abandonedo...bout/the-aok-team/ | |
what i find interesting about this discussion is why some people are so much more willing to accept something on faith whereas other will not, some combatively. It seems that with this topic, science aside (and believe me, you two [tek and alex] should have your own show on PBS) that there really is no middle ground. Speaking from my position as a combative atheist, I find myself insulted by the concept of god and i feel an honest disgust for the concept of OBEY.
Now, another thing is that if (and that's a huge IF) there was a deity, is this really what it would want perpetrated in it's name? I mean, sincerely, what's the game here? There's no logic to any of this. What kind of sick demented leader would want a world (or worlds, lets be real, it's a big universe) full of blathering automatons, worshiping blindly, on their knees and obsequious to any word or perceived gesture from it.
Now, if you go back through recorded history (which of itself is almost a leap of faith because of that old adage about the victors writing the history books) and take a look at each religious movement and the period it was created, popular and went extinct. Polytheism gave way to monotheism and monotheism will no doubt give way to something else, most likely something centered in the day to day interactions with the machines we've built.
anyways, i feel intellectually dwarfed in this conversation, so if this post was a waste of time, i do sincerely apologize... I'm not the sharpest utensil in the drawer, but i sort of try.
| |
Posted by Samurai
what i find interesting about this discussion is why some people are so much more willing to accept something on faith whereas other will not, some combatively. It seems that with this topic, science aside (and believe me, you two [tek and alex] should have your own show on PBS) that there really is no middle ground. Speaking from my position as a combative atheist, I find myself insulted by the concept of god and i feel an honest disgust for the concept of OBEY.
Now, another thing is that if (and that's a huge IF) there was a deity, is this really what it would want perpetrated in it's name? I mean, sincerely, what's the game here? There's no logic to any of this. What kind of sick demented leader would want a world (or worlds, lets be real, it's a big universe) full of blathering automatons, worshiping blindly, on their knees and obsequious to any word or perceived gesture from it.
Now, if you go back through recorded history (which of itself is almost a leap of faith because of that old adage about the victors writing the history books) and take a look at each religious movement and the period it was created, popular and went extinct. Polytheism gave way to monotheism and monotheism will no doubt give way to something else, most likely something centered in the day to day interactions with the machines we've built.
anyways, i feel intellectually dwarfed in this conversation, so if this post was a waste of time, i do sincerely apologize... I'm not the sharpest utensil in the drawer, but i sort of try.
|
Oddly enough, for once, on religion of all things, we have agreed on something. Personally, I think God probably gets pissed about all the bullshit done in His "name".
Edit: We actually agree on many things. But Religion is more rare or us to see eye to eye on. I may have embellished. Meh, what can ya do.
[last edit 8/5/2011 4:37 PM by jeepdave - edited 2 times]
Ezekiel 25:17 | |
Hey tek, what about deductive reasoning? doesn't that rely on faith? I mean, You can't prove that deductive reasoning is accurate without using deductive reasoning. Sounds like the same circular arguments religions make to me. I'd say you can't be a skeptic and claim science is valid.
Tourism, human circulation considered as consumption is fundamentally nothing more than the leisure of going to see what has become banal. | |
Only God can prove God doesn't exist.
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
No, he Kant.
Tourism, human circulation considered as consumption is fundamentally nothing more than the leisure of going to see what has become banal. | |
Very Humerous
mutantMandias may cause dizziness, sexual nightmares, and sleep crime. ++++ mutantMandias has to return some videotapes ++++ Do not taunt mutantMandias
mutantMandias is something more than human, more than a computer. mutantMandias is a murderously intelligent, sensually self-programmed, non-being | |
Posted by earthworm
Hey tek, what about deductive reasoning? doesn't that rely on faith? I mean, You can't prove that deductive reasoning is accurate without using deductive reasoning. Sounds like the same circular arguments religions make to me. I'd say you can't be a skeptic and claim science is valid.
|
I deduce that your question is a red herring.
But seriously, accurate is not a good term to use with deductive reasoning.
To be clear: deductive arguments are either valid or invalid, sound or unsound.
A valid deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise.
A sound deductive argument is one where the premise is true (deductive arguments themselves are never true or false).
EG:
All cats climb trees.
Dave is a cat.
Therefore dave climbs trees.
This would be a sound argument only if the premise that cats climb trees, AND that dave is a cat is true.
The argument would be valid since the conclusion necessarily follows the premise.
On the other hand a circular reasoning is where a conclusion relies on it's own proposition.
Not the same as deductive reasoning, however you are correct in identifying most religious arguments as circular.
e.g.
The universe exists because god created it.
The evidence that god exists is that he created the universe.
Therefore god exists and we should eat crackers and pretend they are flesh.
Most religious arguments are tautology, a form of circular reasoning, identifiable as being unfalsifiable.
You need to accept a fallacy in your argument to get the conclusion that you want - a pretty big hole to jump over - like a leap of faith you might say.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
I'll tell you what, sport. I'll believe in god when he shows up at my door with a billion dollars, a dozen playmates, and a bottle of scotch for yours truly. I would most assuredly believe.
But you'll have to take my word on that.
Where'd my oh there it is go?...damn.
| |
That's actually not my argument at all. As a side note, I think your distinctions between the word accurate, true and sound are interesting. That something can be true but not accurate, as you imply, is entertaining, and I'll look more into it.
Let's look at your cat example. Unfortunately this will be a deductive argument.
All cats climb trees is a deductive premise and overbroad.
One could say all cats that one has experienced that are capable of climbing trees do in fact climb certain trees when the opportunity and motivation present themselves.
Even with any amount of specification one is limited to the set of cats that one has directly or indirectly experienced that do climb trees. (with this argument we also have the variable of types of trees and types of cats. I'm pointing this out just to show that even with some simple argument there are numerous complexities that aren't taken into account, things we don't consider. Even though science is "self correcting", it doesn't allow for things we will never be able to understand.)
The premise with deductive reasoning is deductive and isn't different than a religious circular argument.
I'm not saying religious circular arguments are sound, I just don't believe that there is some pinnacle point of human understanding, much less that we've reached it through science. To claim something is sound and true to me seems a like a wall or some delineating barrier between arbitrary sets of data.
Tourism, human circulation considered as consumption is fundamentally nothing more than the leisure of going to see what has become banal. | |
I'm suddenly reminded of that cunt, Michelle Bachmann, what says, "why don't we let the kids decide what thay want to learn, creationism or evolution.) Twat needs to be spayed with a rusty egg beater.
Where'd my oh there it is go?...damn.
| |
Posted by phractal
I'll tell you what, sport. I'll believe in god when he shows up at my door with a billion dollars, a dozen playmates, and a bottle of scotch for yours truly. I would most assuredly believe.
But you'll have to take my word on that.
|
I believe Islam is what your looking for.
| |
Posted by phractal
I'm suddenly reminded of that cunt, Michelle Bachmann, what says, "why don't we let the kids decide what thay want to learn, creationism or evolution.) Twat needs to be spayed with a rusty egg beater.
|
That's right, choice is never an option.
Ezekiel 25:17 | |
Posted by jeepdave
That's right, choice is never an option.
|
oh come on, Dave... seriously. Do you want a country full of uneducated twats, because that is what it's coming to.
god is a belief, not a fact no matter how much you would like it to be.
i mean, its great if you adhere to the highest ideals that the religion intends, but, it's still not a scientifically provable commodity.
|
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 109 ms
|
|
Ethics
