|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rahvin:
Science is only related to theology if one asserts, as Mr. Davies did, that "god = reality." If you start from that definition, the rest of his argment has validity. But since that definition is clearly a matter of personal opinion and faith, it is objectively invalid. The rest of his argument is irrelevant - his base assumption is false, so his conclusion is also false. quote:( God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster ) Rahvin:I don't care who your quote author is, Rob. It's not relevant. I couldn't care less how many degrees he may or may not have, or what his religion is. All I care about is his argument, which stems compeltely from defining "god" to be "reality." If you don't agree with that definition (and the dictionary doesn't, for one), then the rest of his argument does not follow. You not caring is a moral problem not an intellectual one. The definition of god is. You could have saved yourself this problem if you had read the arguments in the thesis. I provided the definition and the source. As I said in the arguments, the question of reality is one of it's/his nature and character. Is god an impersonal absolute material force, or a living being? You worship a nature god. I worship the god of nature. But we are both philosophizing about the ultimate and actual nature of reality. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I completely understand your point Stile. But you are incorrect, and Davies is right. The problem is that we are not omnipotent. We cannot say for sure that the universe is ordered in the final schme of things. I'm not sure you do understand my point. I was not attempting to say that we could identify if the universe is ordered in the final scheme of things or not. Only that repeated empirical experience shows this to be the case so far. This means scientists do not take it for granted.
Not everyone agreed that the universe was ordered in an intelligible way. Some still don't, and ultimately believe that chaos is the only absolute It doesn't matter what some people agree on and what some people don't agree on. What matters is what our repeatable empirical experiences show us.
The point I am making is that logic must be assumed to be supreme, even if we cannot ultimately prove it. We must have faith. This point I am making is that Faith is not equal to Science. Faith is assuming something without empirical experience to rely on. Science is assuming something based on empirical experience. Why must we have faith? What would happen if we did not have faith? I'm curious as to how you may answer that because I have personal interests invested in the matter. I do not have faith, in anything. I do not make any assumptions that are not based on empirical experiences. What, in your opinion, is going to happen to me? Are you saying I don't exist? I'm not saying we must all base our assumptions on empirical experiences. I'm sure plenty of people base their assumptions on faith. I'm just not one of those people. Why do you think we must base our assumptions on faith? What makes it impossible to base our assumptions on empirical experiences?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Nothing is before existence. Nothing IS outside of existence. One thing to say, another to show. I don't believe your words. Please show me that they're true. Without that, they remain simply words. Adding the words 'that we know of' would actually make sense to me. Is that what you meant? I don't understand how you could have knowledge otherwise.
If you do not understand that only things that exist is a part of existence, and that if its not part of existence, it does not exist; How can i have even the simplest conversation with you? And you understand anything i say? All of God stands before you everyday. But you only see what you want to see. So me telling you the truth is going to fall on deaf ears. Such as it did when mankind crucified the son, and slew the prophets. Tho they only did what was good, by healing, raising the dead, and saying what was true concerning God. But men are their own gods. And without existence, what are you going to be a god of? If you have the ability to understand my words, Then know and see by what i have said. If not: there is nothing more i can say to you. say your peace, as i have said mine. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Stile:
I'm curious as to how you may answer that because I have personal interests invested in the matter. I do not have faith, in anything. I do not make any assumptions that are not based on empirical experiences. What, in your opinion, is going to happen to me? Are you saying I don't exist? Well then you do not believe in a material explanation for abiogenesis. You believe in material abiogenesis, but you have no empirical observation or experience. The theory goes like this... 'somehow, a self replicating cycle is established without any intelligent guidance'. You cannot say how, because it is unempirical. You believe simply because material explanations have been found for some things, and then posit inductively that all things have material explanations. Material explanations have been found for some things. Therefore material explanations exist for all things. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. And that is the problem with inductive reasoning. It may be true... but not without evidence. It is faith. Even so, I am encouraged that you know logic to be valid. Some people elsewhere on these boards cannot bring themselves to even have faith in it, let alone, 'know it'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
tesla writes: If this was true, There wouldn't be such heavy debates in science. Many scientists disagree with how the evidence is interpreted. You were talking about evidence, not interpretation of evidence. As I said, scientific evidence is objective, and we know this because everyone can see and agree about the same evidence. Religious evidence is subjective because there is very little agreement. Concerning interpretation of evidence, a theory becomes accepted when a scientific consensus forms, and a consensus forms when the evidence supporting a particular interpretation becomes very strong. When the evidence is not strong enough to support a consensus then one does not form and there is disagreement and more evidence is sought. This is a strength of science, not a weakness. So what we see happening in science is that a theory becomes accepted because it is likely true. We would never say that a theory is true because there's a consensus. It's an important distinction. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
If you do not understand that only things that exist is a part of existence, and that if its not part of existence, it does not exist; How can i have even the simplest conversation with you? Sorry, I didn't understand you were just stating a simple toatology. If that's all you meant, I hope you understand that the statement is redundant and useless. Like saying "only things that are red have redness, and if they don't have redness, then they're not red". Sure, a nice string of words. But pretty useless in any discussion. I was assuming you meant something meaningful, something like "things only exist within our reality". Which I would then ask you to show, since we cannot know. But if you're only going to state a redundant tautology, then go right ahead and take all the time you'd like to say absolutely nothing of substance.
All of God stands before you everyday. But you only see what you want to see. But this isn't true. I see plenty of things I don't want to see. I see pain and suffering every day. And I do not see God standing before me everyday. In fact, I never see God standing before me. I think you're getting a bit lost in the topic. We're talking about faith not being the same as science. You have yet to show how they are the same. As far as what you've been able to show goes, we're still at:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Rob writes: Material explanations have been found for some things. Therefore material explanations exist for all things. Why do you say I make this claim? I only claim that our empirical experiences are not faith. And that everything we understand so far has an empirical explanation. I've never said that this proves that everything must have a material explanation. That's only a rational tentative conclusion.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. And that is the problem with inductive reasoning. It may be true... but not without evidence. It is faith. I actually agree with you here. Such an absolute conclusion is not based on empirical explanations, and it is faith. But I was asking why it is impossible not to use faith. And I do not hold the faith-based conclusion you provided. Therefore, I do not use faith. I don't see how this helped show that it is impossible not to use faith. So, again, I'll ask you: I do not have faith in anything. Why do you think this is impossible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Stile:
I do not have faith in anything. Why do you think this is impossible? Only because we are not omniscient. Even so, I, like you, believe that what we experience is real, when we are rational about it, and back it up with the available evidence. That makes you a pretty reasonable fellow in my mind. And it may suprise you to know that such reasonableness is honored and encouraged Biblically. I can't give you the verses, because this is a science thread and some people think there's a difference. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: If I infer from past experience that you are likely to be a human being despite the fact that I have never directly observed you, I am not taking that on faith. I'm basing a prediction on previous experiences and objective evidence. If I am a bot that is being controled by a human you would be mistaken. Since you never answered my last post I might as well throw another log on the fire.
Message 45Rahvin writes: The expansion of the Universe is a fact. ICANT writes: I would love to see the information that makes this a fact as I seem to keep finding too many people that disagree with you. You state Here:
Rahvin writes: the Universe simply exists Since you are refering to T=10-43Would you please supply some of those mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence to support this point? God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : try to correct math Edited by ICANT, : No reason given. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
you claim to understand what i have said, yet still claim that you do not experience God.
God is existence. all that is is a part of his body. all you need do is examine the truth of all that you see that you call "empirical". science takes faith in their observations of the world, and faith in their abilities to analyze the data. so. if you follow the logic of evolution empirically, you find that as long as 2 things are, before that is a relevant question. until you get to the ONE. which is existence. now, define existence, and you define the name of God. if you have ever read any of the debates I've had (which many have, and are tired of even seeing the word existence) then you know how i have defined it, and why. which should explain why the empirical, is proof of God, is because the universe (uni (one) verse) is Gods body. and we are like a cell in that body. the sayings of christ validate this. such as: "if your eye offends the, cut it out". it is the same science of observation that science has used in their math (which is funny, because they do not have all the variables of a point to measure expansion from because everything is in constant motion. so relativity can only work truly when you have established your own movements to put the other movements relative to ours: and then move our movements back to the age of what we are viewing to determine how they have moved as one in the same space time at different locations.) ie: view galaxy at 8 billion light years, track its movement, calculate current trends with variables of either speeding up or slowing down by its locations or outside interactions (never can be deduced perfectly because unknown elements could affect movement, such as meteors or planet clashes or births of stars etc.) now knowing (as best you can) what it is going to do by mathematical prediction, take this galaxies movements, the earth's movements, our star clusters movements, and any possible variables that affect our star cluster, galaxy, or solar movements, and reverse the order 8 billion light years. now; knowing where and how fast our galaxy would be in space time 8 billion years ago, compare that to what we are viewing in the galaxy 8 billion light years away is doing NOW (by 8 billion year old light) and you can get about the best picture of how the universe is moving.(well very tentatively) but science doesn't even do that. they just use a math comparing where these things move in relation to each other in different space-times, say how fast we are moving is irrelevant and call anyone who says different ignorant religious fools. (well, at least I've gotten that feeling from the debates on this board.) if you didn't understand any of this then here's a simple analogy on how easy it would be for our mathematicians to be taking there "empirical data" and it can only be faith. car a going down the road 30 miles per hr. car b passes at 30 miles per hr. the appearance of the cars moving away from each other is 60 miles per hr. but car A doesnt know there moving. they believe they have taken into account the 10 miles per hr they thought they were going. so they say the empirical data says the other galaxy is moving at 50 miles per hr. which isn't the truth. but they dont know that. they cant see there true speed, and take for granted they do know it. ie: faith. so i have offered absolute data by viewing existence. that nothing could exist, unless existence was. now whats reality? the truth of what exists. but its perceived with bias. so how you view it, thats what you say it is. but what exist has a reality that is the true reality, regardless what anyone says it is. so what is the truth? if you want any more form me concerning the law of existence, click my name look for the very first post i ever made on the boards: the law of existence. as far as faith: you'll have faith in what you choose to. Edited by tesla, : space-bar eating my sentences, why does it do that? sorry didn't fix my shift impairment *grin* keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Since you are refering to T=O40
Little math help here:040 = 0 I think you might want to doublecheck that. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Thank you kindly Dr.
God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
lol 0 to the trillionth power is still zero huh?
did you know that exploring T=0 is now the new frontier of science? We're Sorry - Scientific American check it out eh? now you wanna talk faith is science: anyone who is truly studying string theory. wow. now that takes an act of faith to study. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
You were talking about evidence, not interpretation of evidence. As I said, scientific evidence is objective, and we know this because everyone can see and agree about the same evidence. Religious evidence is subjective because there is very little agreement. No different. All Christians agree christ died for their sins. Its the details that are not worked out. Science is just as divided. Some scientists are religious, some are not. Its still evidence. Its just in the interpretations. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. Right now we are all on a turning point, because the age is ending. And soon all this chatter will probably seem small in comparison to what the new age is going to bring about very soon. But as we stand at the edge of its, lets debate with honesty. Is string theory a theory only acceptable by faith? How potential is the data next to the data of God? which makes better sense? honestly. We defined faith, any action based on belief with no doubt , thats what faith is. You come to faith by evidence. An example in an earlier post by a definition from wiki said: A man who walked tightropes could carry a man his his shoulders, but even though people saw it, and new he could do it, only the trainer had enough faith to get on his shoulders. The evidence is there. But no one was willing to act on the evidence. They did not have faith in his ability, even after they saw him do it. Same with science. If you don't believe in string theory, but believe : Hey its a decent theory. Can never prove it. But hey thats science right? What do you call the acceptance of string theory? What data does it REALLY have to back it up? As much as a man dying on a cross and raising from the dead three days later? More than a man who raised the dead? Even the Jews don't deny he did those things. Too many reliable witnesses. They just say he isn't who he said he is. Call him a prophet most do. A prophet, and a liar huh? So which is HE? Who did those things? He didn't stand to gain anything by it. Neither did his disciples who had to fight death in every town, sneaking out windows and running for their lives because what they said caused so much anger. But still they did it. Even after prison to prison. And still they had faith. And still they taught Jesus the son of God. Now, with this data , what has more backing of empirical data: String theory? Or the many witnesses of Jesus of Nazareth? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Hey Rahvin, relax... I get pretty fired up myself at times. Just think about it. You have a good mind, so if there is a flaw in my argumentation, you will find it.
I've struggled with these issues myself. If there is a flaw, I want to be the first to know because I want the truth... not some blind faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024