|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,829 Year: 3,086/9,624 Month: 931/1,588 Week: 114/223 Day: 12/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Since I couldn't reply to it in the summations at the end of the Universe Race thread, and since it seems to be an interesting topic all its own, let's talk about how many of the faithful attempt to equate science with faith in order to claim equal validity.
From Rob in the other thread:
quote: I think you need to be more specific. Since mathematics is the tool used for understanding this stuff, can we not agree that science is faith in logic, and that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way? While I would agree that all scientific models depend on the consistency of the Universe to remain accurate, I will also disagree that science takes this on faith. We are constantly looking for examples where our models stop working. We trust that gravity, for example, will work tomorrow the same as it has for the past few billion years becasue it has done so for the past few billion years. This is not the same as faith, which requires no such example from experience. We can also test for changes in the underlying constants of the Universe. The speed of light, for instance, could not have been drastically different in the past, becasue the Unvierse as we see it today would not have formed. That constant affects far too many processes, and we would be able to detect the results of a Universe that previously had a different valuse for c. No faith is involved. Once again, you're trying to equate belief in the accuracy of scientific models with blind religious faith so that you can say "you do it too, so my view is just as valid." Unfortunately, you're wrong - science is not based on faith even remotely the same way as your religion is. The entire point of the scientific method is to produce objective, accurate, reproducible results so that any theory can be shown to be accurate at any time, and nothing need be taken on faith.
quote: Furthermore, what is your theistic position? I ask, because the model you refer to, is based upon a philosophy of materialism, that has certain theistic implications and not others. The Big Bang model is not based on any such thing. Science is based on those processes which are observable and testable. As a scientific model, the Big Bang Theory is based upon observable and testable phenomenon in the Unvierse. We do not presuppose that nothing esle could exist - far from it, we are constantly searching for that which has not yet been identified. Instead, we simply model that which we do see evidence for. Once again we are led to Occam's Razor - extraneous entities are irrelevant to the matter at hand. This doesn't mean they can't possibly exist, it simply means that they are not relevant to the model.
Allow me to explain:
quote: You certainly do love to cut/paste other peoples words, dont you. But you sound like a more intelligable version of tesla. If you want to define your god as "reality," you are free to do so. However, there are those of us who disagree, and your entire cut-n-paste consists of nothign more than defining "god" as "reality" and then concluding that all contemplation of reality then must be contemplation of god. This would be true if your original definition of "god = reality" were not a compelte non sequitur.
So Rahvin, my point is not to challenge the logic of your view. It is logical. My point (and the point of many others) is that all of us smuggle in a theological view that is not directly observable by way of empirical observation. And thus you prove my point - you theists constantly try to associate scientific beliefs with beliefs based on faith. As I have said, this is not in any way the case. A scientific model, like the Big Bang model, doesn't speak about "god" not because it is based on "materialism" or the premise that a deity cannot exist. The Big bang model does not mention "god" because it sees no observable, objective evidence to suggest one. Parsimony dictates that the model should then consider "god" irrelevant. You're trying to say that, because your religious fantasies are not included in science, science must have presupposed that your beliefs are impossible fantasies. This is false. Science will include anything no matter how fantastical into its models in persuit of greater accuracy. All that's needed is for the additional entity to be required by objective evidence.
You don't have the authority to exalt a 'materialistic worldview' of reality as objective and unbiased. When a person states that a scientific model depends on a materialistic worldview, my first reaction is "this person doesn't know what he's talking about." You haven't changed that impression. Science only accepts that which is objective and unbiased! That's the entire point of the scientific method! If the models of science resemble a "materialistic worldview" to you, that's only becasue the objective, unbiased evidence we can observe in the Unvierse doesn't include your religious faith. Stop trying to equate science with faith. They aren't the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
This really depends on what you mean by "faith". I like to use the dictionary for general definitions. It ensures we're all talking about the same thing. Don't you agree?
Faith is: Action, based on belief, with no doubt to the outcome. An act of faith is: walking across your room. Typing on a keyboard. Wait...what? Here's what the dictionary has to say about faith:
quote: Emphasis mine on the relevant definition. Faith is a belief that is not based on proof. That would be the exact polar opposite of science, which only models that for which there is objective evidence.
In science: its studying an item based on assumptions. the studying is an act of faith. In light of the actual definition of the word "faith" and not the tesla-ese "I define words however I feel like" version, that statement is false.
Like walking across a room, or typing on your keyboard, you have assumed the room and you are real, and you have the real ability to perform the action, because you believe what your senses tell you. And that would be evidence, so the belief is based on proof. Meaning it's not faith at all.
So also in science, you study your science, based on your belief in the science and its assumptions are true. Or true enough to scrutinize. And also in your math, that it is reliable. Because if no faith in reliability, you would not do the math. The models and math have been repeatedly shown to be highly accurate. Once again, it's not a belief not based on proof. All of science is based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments. It's the polar opposite of blind faith.
All acts in this life are acts of faith, the only question is; faith in what? In religion, men take faith in God. And worship him. And as written in the christian bible; if a man has the faith of a mustard seed in God, then if you tell a mountain to be removed, it will be removed. If you examine a mustard seed, you'll see it is a tiny item. but the mustard seed grows into a huge plant. Such a tiny seed, but big results. The seed has faith in its power in the earth, that in the right conditions it will grow. and it acts. It is a living item. So also would men's faith, in God, grow and bear fruit. But the faith is in Gods power, not in the power of man. And in science, it is faith in your own abilities, and not Gods. But it is still faith if you understand what faith is. Religious nonsense, not relevant to the topic. Pointing out your unfounded religious faith only demonstrates the stark difference between belief without evidence and science which is based on nothing but evidence.
Science is biased tho. It will take any probability and study it because it is "potential". But not God. When God is just as potential. The probability of a created universe from God is even more understandable than any logic saying that the universe farted itself out of nothing. Science studies anything and everything we are able to observe and test. If "god" would like to be included in science, he's welcome to show up in a lab at some point so that we can observe him. Theists like yourself want so desperately to scream "bias!" and equate scientific models with your flimsy beliefs. The fact is though, science is based completely on objective, observable reality. The entirety of the scientific method is designed specifically to remove faith from the equation, and to ensure that any and every model in science is testable, observable, and reproducible. Nothing in science is taken on faith. I'm sorry, but "my beliefs without evidence are just as valid as your objectively testable and repeatable models" is a false statement. Objectively, there is nothing different from faith in "god" and belief in fairies or the invisible pink unicorn. None are observable, none are testable, and none are based on any evidence whatsoever. Scientific models like the Theories of Gravity, Evolution, and the Big bang are based on mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence. There's an awfully large difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Rahvin:
quote: The quote I gave you earlier is from an argument in support of my thesis. So as Moose eluded to, I didn't quote mine it, except from myself. You can read it here: rob_lock LiveJournal I didn't say you quote-mined. I said you seem to love copy/pasting other people's work without putting it into your own words. There's a difference.
Part of that argumentation is supported by a quote from Paul Davies who is currently at the University of Arizona. Please note that Davies is not a Christian, but he understands what you do not. So, legitimate scientists disagree with you also Rahvin. Oh no! An appeal to authority! Whatever will I do to defeat this blatant logical fallacy! 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.
quote: (Paul Davies / The Privileged Planet Q&A segment) Paul Davies is wrong. The belief that the Universe is ordered in an intelligible way is not a leap of faith without evidence. It's backed up by the fact that everything has continued to work in the same way for as far back as we can test. The speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe. Gravity works the same everywhere in the Universe. It's possible that the laws of physics could change tomorrow...jsut as it's possible a magic fairy is sitting on your shoudler right now. But all the evidence suggests the constants of the Unvierse are just that - constant. All of the evidence shows that we do not live in a Universe impossible to model. Scientist sbelieve the Unvierse is intelligible becasue so far it has proven to be so! Again, that's the opposite of faith, which is a belief not based on evidence. His asinine equating of science to theology is simply false. They are polar opposites. They can be compatible, as I'm certainly not saying that one cannot agree with science and still have religious faith. But their approaches are compeltely opposite. Science deals with that which is objectively observable and provable. Faith deals with that for which there is no objective and observable evidence. There's nothing theological regarding science whatsoever. Let's go to the dictionary again:
quote: 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. Once again Rob, you're trying desperately to insist that blind, evidence-less faith holds the same validity as a scientific model based upon objective, repeatable, testable evidence. You want very badly to say "you do the same thing, so stop saying my beliefs are flimsy!" You want everyone to validate your opinion that your beliefs and science should be given equal consideration. This is exactly the same as the idiots who want to "give equal time" to evolution and Genesis Creation in schools. The facts are the same now as they are in the classroom: religion and science are not the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Why? Is it really anyone's business what, when, who, where, and how I equate? Are you the arbiter of who thinks or says what who thinks or says? Saying that science and faith have the same validity is a false statement. One is based on objective evidence. The other is not. You're welcome to hold whatever opinions you'd like, but if you say something factually incorrect, you should also expect to be called on it.
Also, I'd like for you to produce the "many of the faithful" you address in your opening paragraph. I want to hear if that is actually what they attempt. Your adversaries, I imagine? I don't think "naming names" is appropriate as I'm not attacking individuals, but rather an argument that has been posed both directly and indirectly on this forum many times by many people of faith. Since his post is the one that spawned this thread, I'll at least name Rob. The specific number and identity of the individuals who do this is irrelevant. The argument is fallacious, and that is all that matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
quote: and all of science agree they are tentative. Yes, pending additional objective evidence. Still no faith involved, tesla. We don't claim science has omniscience, we claim that the models of science are highly accurate.
quote: then look it up in Hebrew. How the hell is that relevant?! We don't speak hebrew here tesla, and this isn't a Biblical thread. Hebrew has nothing to do with anything. I see you ignored the vast majority of my post, and that you're continuing with your own personal tesla-ese definition of "Faith." You're wrong, tesla. Period. Faith is not an action. That's why we have to use phrases like "an act of faith." Faith is, as the dictionary defines it, as everyone understands it except for you, belief not based on objective evidence. I type on my keyboard and expect the letters to appear on the screen not by faith, but because of objective experience and evidence that it has done so every other time I have typed on it. Faith would be expecting fairies inside that magic box to make the letters appear on the screen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Hi Rahvin, Rahvin writes:
quote: Before I get in trouble let me see if I understand this. In this thread these things will be absolutes. Faith will be the belief in things for which there are no proof. No proof will be not observable, not testable and not reproducible. Science will be anything we can observe, and test that is reproducible. Is this what you are saying we need to agree on if we are to have meaningful debate? Correct anything that is incorrect. God Bless, I see where you're going with this. Science also includes deductive reasoning based on models of that observable, reproducible evidence. For instance, we can infer from the way gravity is tested here on Earth that gravity will work the same way on Mars. When we test this by actually sending a probe to Mars, or using the planet's gravity well to alter the course of a probe, that inference is confirmed. We can then further infer that gravity must work the same way throughout the Universe. We've tested many examples of that as well. Note that logical inference based on models derived from observable evidence is still not faith, as it is still based on objective, repeatable evidence, and the inferences themselves are testable given the correct technology. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Here is a better definition in English. Notice the action required. Let's try quoting what you mean isntead of a bare link, shall we?
quote: I bolded the relevant parts. No, tesla, no action is required for faith - acts of faith are one expression of faith, but you can have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster without taking any particular action. Faith is not a verb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I'm not killing faith. Faith is. It is faith in WHAT or WHO that is important. People act in the World and in science because they have faith in the world and their observations (tentative tho it may be) in science. Belief based on observations is not faith, as per your own definition.
But faith in christ, and faith in God is greater still, because there were those who seen Jesus and his miracles of even raising the dead, yet they did not believe, even as they saw it. God IS. Like air you breath IS. And what makes your relationship with him possible is KNOWING he is there. Which you CAN observe. Just like you observe in science. But until you know, and act in prayer, you will only have your faith in the world. The mustard seed is in the world. Its faith is that in the right conditions it will grow. but we can watch it grow. It IS tangible. But you are blind, and do not see that the miracle you witness in sciences and study is grown by the very faith of all that is. And the action of all, is faith. But the faith of the seed is in God. The faith of a man is in themselves and the world. This is the truth. Two words: Prove it. Show evidence of that which you have faith for. That's the difference between science and faith. If you ask for the evidence behind any scientific theory, you will be provided with its observable, objective basis. You can't give evidence for faith-based beliefs. If you could, it wouldn't require faith. Your particular theology is irrelevant. You posit the existence of a supernatural entity, but you are completely incapable of providing objective evidence suggesting that entity actually exists. That's the very definition of faith. Science consists completely of evidence and logical inference derived from evidence. No faith is involved - the first words out of a scientists mouth upon hearing a new hypothesis are "what's your evidence?" The difference is so massive even a child should be able to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
You missed this part:
quote: An act of will is not a physical action as you have been proposing! You've been claiming that walking across a room is faith, that typing on a keyboard is faith, but an act of will is something completely different. The act of will mentioned is a description of the mental process of overcoming doubt without evidence. It's the process of convincing yourself that there is really a fairy over at the other side of the room, even though you can't see it or any evidence of it. That is completely different from saying "faith requires an action." The important part as it pertains to this discussion is "belief on the basis of evidence is not faith." The examples you've been giving in each of your responses do not involve faith because they are based on the evidence of experience! That's what defines the difference between faith and science - evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
You act on the BELIEF the room is REAL and that you can CAPABLY walk across it. Without this mental analysis and understanding, you would not be able to walk across the room if you did not fully believe you could do it. That belief is based on repeatable and observable evidence, as I have walked across the room or rooms like it many times before. It's based on evidence, tesla, not faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Hi Rahvin, Rahvin writes:
quote: You quote my entire message and then this was all you have to say about it. So much for debate. I thought my comments answered your question. Did they not?
Message 1 In the OP you state:
quote: This is three assertions you made. Correct. I was pointing out in my reply to you that logical inference derived from objective, obervable evidence is still not faith.
In Re: defining faith (Message 7)
quote: Here you make a statement about the definition of faith. Then you commence to make 3 assertions. Now in msg 21 you want to add:Science also includes deductive reasoning and logical inference Is this not what Rob and Straggler are debating? It is, to a degree. But theirs is a Great Debate topic, and I wanted to be able to respond to Rob's response to me from the Universe Race thread. Also, this topic is more specifically addressing the motive behind all of these arguments - some people of faith want to have their beliefs put on the same level as those of science.
These two are based on the human mind examining things and coming to conclusions based on what they conclude is correct. How can these 2 additions be compatable with the the six assertions you had previously made? Especialy this one: " based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments." How are they not? Logical inference based on an observed process is still based on evidence. Especially since scientific inferences (hypotheses) are testable with objective, observable evidence. Something not based on evidence would be like asserting that the speed of light mst have been faster in the past. There is no evidence to suggest this (and in fact is evidence contradicting it), so if a person believes it, that belief would be based on faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If this was true, There wouldn't be such heavy debates in science. Many scientists disagree with how the evidence is interpreted. You should see Straggler's post on this subject here. Your statement is only true if science posesses all relavent evidence. Since we are not omniscienct, we have to make do with the evidence we have. That's why all scientific models are tentative pending additional evidence - if we had all of the evidence, we'd know the answer with 100% certainty.
Your alive, you do not deny that. You just deny it came from God. (as i know you to say) Not quite. As usual, you misunderstand atheism. Atheism does not state "there is no god." Atheism states "I see no reason to believe in god." There is a very large difference. The first statement would require evidence, and without it, it's a statement of faith. The second statement is dependant on objective evidence.
But like science, the evidence of God is based on interpretation of evidence. We all in effect, see what we want to see. We don't change our world view because someone Say's anything different. We change our world view when evidence makes sense to us. Here you go again, trying to equate your faith with science. The existence of a supernatural deity is not suggested by any evidence. Scientific evidence, as Percy noted, is identical from one person to another. We can show the evidence that suggests the Big Bang model of the Theory of Evolution. You have no evidence requiring the existence of a deity. That's the very difference between science and faith!
I didn't come to the boards with true faith. But having debated here, i found true faith. Because the evidence you deny cannot nor has ever been refuted, and most refuse to even acknowledge its potential. Such as the topic i tried to start, and as you and i discussed, left it to close. You never posted any actual evidence, just gobbledygook and nonsense about "everything exists in existence." But then, that's not the topic here.
You can call science objective. Scientists object to another scientists reasoning all the time. But when the "board" makes a decision, everyone Say's: alright thats it. They made the decision. So this is what we will believe. Of course there is disagreement and debate withing science. Has anyone said otherwise? Disagreement and debate over scientific models does not mean the models are wrong. Debate and criticism are part of the scientific method, and they are what ensures that the evidence is unbiased and objective.
But i say: Show me what i can believe, because science is many times wrong. So i will review science objectively. You're an individual. You're subject to personal incredulity ("what you can believe"), personal ignorance, etc. You aren't capable of objective analasys alone. That's why science requires experiments to be repeatable, so that multiple, independant researchers can duplicate the results and ensure objectivity.
And if i find a question, that no one has an answer to: that doesn't mean its a stupid question. Nor am i stupid for asking. That depends on the question.
But it is UNKNOWN. And the rest is guesses. What, exactly, is this "guess" you're referring to?
So i offer my best guess by the evidence shown, and i am called the fool for being objective. No, you're called a fool for not making any sense and having a flimsy argument dependant compeltely on your initial definition of "god is existence." It's a lot like Rob in this thread, except Rob makes more sense even if his arguemnt is still false.
But as we all have our opinions of science; Who knows? You? Me? The purple dinosaur? God? "Truth" is not the purview of science, and science never claims to have all of the answers. All that is claimed is that science models reality with a high degree of accuracy, and strives constantly to increase that accuracy as new evidence is uncovered.
You should be careful all of you who deny God openly. Because as you claim there is no proof to say he is, (While living and breathing in a huge universe that you have no idea how it could "exist"), Neither have you shown that he does NOT exist. Do we also have to show that there is NOT an invisible purple elephant standing next to you?
Nor will you, because he IS. And it is not given to me in power to show you that you might have faith; because God works his way. And he will open your ears and speak to your thoughts and your heart if you know him. In this way, has he came to me, and shown me things i could not know. But its his power, not mine. So i am a fool. But my God is all knowing. You just stated exactly the definition of faith: there is no evidence for beliefs based on faith. That's the difference between faith and science. You posess no objective evidence for your deity, and so take his existence on faith. I have objective, reproducible evidence that my keyboard works, and so I do not take its continued function on faith.
I have nothing further to add to this thread, having said what i can; And the rest, we will all know in our deaths of this body, or the coming of the Son in his glory, whichever may come first. This really isnt the place to preach, tesla.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If I am a bot that is being controled by a human you would be mistaken. A logical inference based on objective evidence can still be wrong, ICANT. I never claimed the scientific method results in perfect knowledge. The potential to be wrong also does not imply faith - the belief is still based on objective evidence and past experience.
Rahvin writes:
quote: ICANT writes:
quote: The expansion of the Universe is an observation based primarily (but not wholly) on the redshift observed in distant galaxies. As an observation, it is as factual as anything else in science. True, it is still tentative (again, it's possible we are all in the Matrix), but it is so strongly supported by evidence and models based on it so accurately reflect our Universe that it's as much a fact as gravity. But that's not the topic of this thread, ICANT.
Rahvin writes:
quote: Since you are refering to T=10-43Would you please supply some of those mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence to support this point? I'd say it's pretty obvious that the universe exists, ICANT. I mean, look around you. Everything you see would be objective evidence that the Unvierse exists. Or are you referring to Big Bang cosmology again? That thing you never did understand despite two entire threads of attempts to explain it to you? We gave you a very large amount of objective, testable, reproducible evidence of the Big Bang model in those other threads. I've grown rather tired of bashing my face against the brick wall of your ignorance, and I'm certainly not going to repeat myself again in a thread about a different topic entirely. Now, do you have anything to say regarding the actual topic of the thread? Or did you just want to rehash the same misconceptions and ignorance in a third round?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
But it is the topic. Message 392 of 410 03-10-2008 11:43 AM When you posted this message you were 100% positive that expansion was a fact. The only way you could have been that sure was by your FAITH. You just proved that with msg 70. No, I did not. I told you it's as much of a fact as gravity - its a process we have directly observed. We may be wrong in our model of that process, but the models have both proven to be so highly accurate that we no longer really doubt them, because they are based on mountains of objective evidence and constant experience. Gravity, evolution, the big Bang, all of these are models that so accurately reflect our Universe that they are basically considered "factual," even though technically each is still tentative. None are based on faith, and the statement that the expansion of the Universe is a fact is also not a statement of faith, because it is based on objective evidence.
I know you have faith in what you believe, but I got to have something a little bit stronger than your word. I don't have faith, ICANT. That's part of the point. Like Stile, I try very hard to make sure that I don't take anything on faith. I trust based on experience, I infer based on evidence, but I don't believe anything based on faith.
I await your evidence on this point. I'm going to be very direct: I will not rehash cosmological theory with you again. I dont care if you even tie it to the topic of this thread - I used up all of my patience with you on that subject in the other threads. We provided a great deal of evidence. The fact that you are incapable of understanding it only means that further discussion will increase my blood pressure, and I don't see the point.
Very observant. Then we move to your statement: "the universe simply exists". But you were referring to T=10-43 as you had several times when we had discussed the Big Bang. Now you either accept the fact that the universe simply exists at T=10-43 by "FAITH" or you have reproducible, objective, testable evidence to support this assertion. Big Bang cosmology is based entirely upon objective, testable, reproducible evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and the redshift of distant galaxies. All of the predictions made that we can test are highly accurate. Extrapolating backwards to earlier points in time involves rational, logical and mathematical inference. When models of the distant past are extrapolated back to the present, the results are uncannily similar to the Universe we see today. Objective, repeatable, testable evidence has allowed us to derive a highly accurate model that predicts that the Universe exists at certain states at certain points in time. This is not faith. This is a scientific model, and as we have shown repeatedly in this thread, the two are very different. Of course, had you thought more about your comment, you would realize that no matter when or how the Universe "begins," there is always a T=0 and a T=10^-43. The only case where the Universe does not exist in both of those cases is if the Universe existed eternally backwards. Current evidence does not suggest infinite time regression (it's possible, but without evidence it's irrelevant). Clearly, the Universe exists at T=10^-43, because in order for time to exist, the Universe, part of which is time, must also exist. This isn't faith, ICANT, it's simply logical reasoning. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4034 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Every post by ICANT, tesla, and Rob in this thread has done nothing more than prove my point: there are some members who want desperately to equate science with faith. They are incapable of comprehending a person or any aspect of life not based on faith, because faith is such a huge component of their lives. It's a case of massive projection.
It's perfectly understandable that a person would want their beiefs to be just as valid as those of anyone else. Their right to have those beliefs is of course equal - anyone can believe whatever they want. But all beliefs are not equal. Those based on objective evidence are inherently superior. Beliefs based on evidence can be used to make inferences and predictions about reality that have some sort of testable accuracy. Beliefs based on faith include not only religious beliefs, but also beliefs in imaginary friends, fairies, and invisible pink dragons. Those who posses religious faith hate being told that their beliefs are on par with someone who believes there is a monster under their bed. That's certainly understandable...but the basis of the belief is faith for both - they are beliefs without evidence, or even in spite of contradictory evidence. And despite what ICANT, tesla, and Rob would very much like us all to believe, science is not based on faith, at all. It is based entirely on objective evidence and the logical, testable conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence. Creationists like to say "evolution is based on faith, too," or "you have faith in the Big Bang, and I have faith in the Bible." But the facts are against them - science is not based on faith. That's why science has brought us the computers we're all staring at right now, medicine, airplanes, cars, etc. Faith has brought us the belief that gravity is caused by angels holding us to the ground, or that the motion of planets is caused by angels pushing them, or that the volcano will erupt if we don't give it a sacrifice. The difference should be obvious.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024