|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2018 2:22:12 GMT
Unless you think it's possible for nothing producing everything, non-life producing life, randomness producing fine-tuning, chaos producing information, unconsciousness producing consciousness, and non-reason producing reason. Then God is the best explanation. Dude, god isn't even an explanation, let alone the best one. This deserves QFT. God is the classic example of a Fake Explanation. The problem with saying God is an explanation is identical to the problem of saying phlogiston was an explanation for fire (the example used in that article).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2018 2:32:16 GMT
You might think it is an especially different sort of belief if it is in science, but it is not. Either you can do the science yourself or you are just a believer. If you are just a believer then it is no longer "science" no matter who else can do whatever science. How long are you going to keep up this bit of nonsense? All beliefs are not equal. All beliefs do not require "faith." Believing the sun will rise or explode tomorrow are both beliefs, but one is based on reason and the other is based on nothing. Trying to pretend that they require the same level of faith in order to believe is just wrong. Similarly, belief in science exists because the proof science works is all around us. It's present in the very machine that I'm typing this reply on. Every time I open my icebox, drive in my car, talk on the phone, flush a toilet, play guitar, watch a movie... what can you do these days that is not a reminder of the triumphs of science? So, believing what science says is a direct result of science having proven what it says it knows is true. If religion had ever done this, religion wouldn't require much faith either. If faith healers had as much success as doctors/modern medicine, they'd be as wealthy as doctors. Plus, if any religious believers could walk on water, raise the dead, or do half the miracles in The Bible, we'd also believe what they said even if we couldn't do what they did. There's a RATIONAL tendency in humans to believe in things that prove their correctness, even if we can't produce the same proof ourselves. This shouldn't be conflated with believing in things that provide absolutely zero proof, or evidence of any kind, that they're true, which describes all religions. When people believe in a god it is often not because they believe they have found a "good explanation," it is sometimes because they have not found one. This is one of the truest things you've ever said. You've just described "god of the gaps," and pretty much explains ALL belief in God (not just some). Looking historically, how successful has using God to explain unexplained phenomena been? Lightning? Rain? Earthquakes? Sickness/Disease? Seems like it's batting a perfect 0.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2018 7:12:40 GMT
You might think it is an especially different sort of belief if it is in science, but it is not. Either you can do the science yourself or you are just a believer. If you are just a believer then it is no longer "science" no matter who else can do whatever science. How long are you going to keep up this bit of nonsense? All beliefs are not equal. All beliefs do not require "faith." Believing the sun will rise or explode tomorrow are both beliefs, but one is based on reason and the other is based on nothing. Trying to pretend that they require the same level of faith in order to believe is just wrong. Similarly, belief in science exists because the proof science works is all around us. It's present in the very machine that I'm typing this reply on. Every time I open my icebox, drive in my car, talk on the phone, flush a toilet, play guitar, watch a movie... what can you do these days that is not a reminder of the triumphs of science? So, believing what science says is a direct result of science having proven what it says it knows is true. If religion had ever done this, religion wouldn't require much faith either. If faith healers had as much success as doctors/modern medicine, they'd be as wealthy as doctors. Plus, if any religious believers could walk on water, raise the dead, or do half the miracles in The Bible, we'd also believe what they said even if we couldn't do what they did. There's a RATIONAL tendency in humans to believe in things that prove their correctness, even if we can't produce the same proof ourselves. This shouldn't be conflated with believing in things that provide absolutely zero proof, or evidence of any kind, that they're true, which describes all religions. When people believe in a god it is often not because they believe they have found a "good explanation," it is sometimes because they have not found one. This is one of the truest things you've ever said. You've just described "god of the gaps," and pretty much explains ALL belief in God (not just some). Looking historically, how successful has using God to explain unexplained phenomena been? Lightning? Rain? Earthquakes? Sickness/Disease? Seems like it's batting a perfect 0. One of the things that made the fictional character Mr. Spock such a good scientist was his lack of emotion. Faith is faith no matter what the faith is in whether science or religion or anything else. It is just your emotional preference for what you believe is "science" that makes any difference to you. The reality not colored by emotion is that relativity is no more "proven" than anything in religion. It is very highly speculative and outside the reach of common laboratories. I'm not saying speculation is bad. Sometimes it is all we have or ever will have. I'm just saying that you are confusing the certainty of science with speculation and your faith is really just as much faith as any other. So quit fooling yourself. You might as well. You're not fooling anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2018 7:19:54 GMT
I think you missed the point. The problem is not whether life can be assembled from dead matter. The problem is whether life can be assembled from dead matter without an intelligent designer putting the pieces together. By the way and not that it matters but no, I don't believe those scientists accomplished anything significant. Now if your point is that the scientists were not intelligent, well you got me there.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 25, 2018 12:29:02 GMT
I think you missed the point. The problem is not whether life can be assembled from dead matter. The problem is whether life can be assembled from dead matter without an intelligent designer putting the pieces together. By the way and not that it matters but no, I don't believe those scientists accomplished anything significant. Probably because you don’t understand what they actually did. But you can “believe” that life requires an intelligent designer all you want. But you haven’t really given a good reason for why an intelligent designer is necessary. The evidence would seem to suggest that happy accidents occur all the time in nature.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2018 12:41:35 GMT
How long are you going to keep up this bit of nonsense? All beliefs are not equal. All beliefs do not require "faith." Believing the sun will rise or explode tomorrow are both beliefs, but one is based on reason and the other is based on nothing. Trying to pretend that they require the same level of faith in order to believe is just wrong. Similarly, belief in science exists because the proof science works is all around us. It's present in the very machine that I'm typing this reply on. Every time I open my icebox, drive in my car, talk on the phone, flush a toilet, play guitar, watch a movie... what can you do these days that is not a reminder of the triumphs of science? So, believing what science says is a direct result of science having proven what it says it knows is true. If religion had ever done this, religion wouldn't require much faith either. If faith healers had as much success as doctors/modern medicine, they'd be as wealthy as doctors. Plus, if any religious believers could walk on water, raise the dead, or do half the miracles in The Bible, we'd also believe what they said even if we couldn't do what they did. There's a RATIONAL tendency in humans to believe in things that prove their correctness, even if we can't produce the same proof ourselves. This shouldn't be conflated with believing in things that provide absolutely zero proof, or evidence of any kind, that they're true, which describes all religions. This is one of the truest things you've ever said. You've just described "god of the gaps," and pretty much explains ALL belief in God (not just some). Looking historically, how successful has using God to explain unexplained phenomena been? Lightning? Rain? Earthquakes? Sickness/Disease? Seems like it's batting a perfect 0. One of the things that made the fictional character Mr. Spock such a good scientist was his lack of emotion. Faith is faith no matter what the faith is in whether science or religion or anything else. It is just your emotional preference for what you believe is "science" that makes any difference to you. The reality not colored by emotion is that relativity is no more "proven" than anything in religion. It is very highly speculative and outside the reach of common laboratories. I'm not saying speculation is bad. Sometimes it is all we have or ever will have. I'm just saying that you are confusing the certainty of science with speculation and your faith is really just as much faith as any other. So quit fooling yourself. You might as well. You're not fooling anyone else. I guess the answer to my question is that you're going to keep up with this nonsense in perpetuity, because what you said here ignored everything I said and is just repeating what you said earlier. Relativity is proven for anyone that's ever bothered to test it. Science has proven itself repeatedly; religion hasn't proven itself once. All "faiths" are not the same. Believing that the sun will rise/explode tomorrow are both beliefs that require faith, but one is rational and the other is irrational. So quit fooling yourself. You might as well. You're not fooling anyone else. I might as well quote Yudkowsky, since he says it better than myself:
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2018 13:37:43 GMT
There's a lot of that going around. The last time you mentioned that I challenged you to show that more people of faith believe the sun will explode tomorrow than there are "scientists" who do. Where is that data? Aha, well chosen words, more or less what I live for these days. Why can't you see that is my point though? I actually agree with everything you say about science. The only glitch is that mine is science and yours is not. Most of the confusion lately comes from using statistical analysis, which I have explained is not the same as the "science" that deserves your accolades. I have studied both and made excellent grades in both. I know whereof I speak. Amateurs note differences in data so small that it only shows up after twenty years then try to dictate which factor caused the change. That is not science. Way too many things change way too much in twenty years to say which "one" factor is responsible. The science you mean to applaud eliminates other factors in order to correctly identify the effects of the one factor of interest. That is ordinarily impossible in statistical analysis scenarios in the news. Do you think the sea will rise drastically tomorrow? It might, you just don't why yet. The "invisible dragon" of religion does not use the power of the state to force you at gunpoint to pay for its medical treatments. The invisible dragon of false science shouldn't do that either, but it does. Medical costs are insanely high and it is because people continue to believe in false science.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 25, 2018 14:18:48 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 25, 2018 15:48:47 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? Depends on what you’ve placed that faith in. Faith can be a good thing IF it is placed in something that is demonstrably reliable, consistent, trustworthy, and beneficial. If faith is placed in something demonstrably unreliable, inconsistent, untrustworthy, and detrimental, then faith becomes a BAD thing.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 16:03:06 GMT
<the same things as usual> Should you discover some molecule that can sing the choral to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as it assembles a living thing from dead matter, that will be a thoroughly remarkable thing whether you call it a "god" or not. What's funny is the people who think such puerile fantasy is any way yielded from evolution or even by abiogenesis. No doubt! I don't believe you know even one real scientist except me. We aren't as common as you might think. My IQ is exceptionally high.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 25, 2018 16:25:30 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? Faith in the Christian sky god is good, faith in the Muslim sky god is bad.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 25, 2018 17:08:43 GMT
If you were to become an atheist, you MIGHT have to admit you don't know how every came about. That can be hard. But that's not really related to atheism, just your own personal thoughts on whether or not you can admit you don't know how everything came about. Also: be still, Cody. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qPNCuf8g
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 25, 2018 17:42:25 GMT
Look even as a theist, I see how incorrect you are. In fact as a theist I have to reconcile God with the proven laws and rules that the universe operates under, not the other way around. The hardest being of course natural evil, as a theist I have to reconcile how God would allow millions to be killed in natural disasters, if I rejected God that would be far easier to understand. Just curious, but how do you reconcile it (I mean you personally)? I tend to think of God™ the Creator as separate from God™ the personal saviour. God™ the creator set up a creation which has certain rules, rather he set up the rules that would result in creation, but did not fine tweak when things went a certain way, I feel the same about evolution, God set up the rules for evolution and let them run their course, the rules that set up nature are the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:50:53 GMT
Just curious, but how do you reconcile it (I mean you personally)? I tend to think of God™ the Creator as separate from God™ the personal saviour. God™ the creator set up a creation which has certain rules, rather he set up the rules that would result in creation, but did not fine tweak when things went a certain way, I feel the same about evolution, God set up the rules for evolution and let them run their course, the rules that set up nature are the same. Are you familiar with the concept of spiritual warfare and the corruption of creation? That suffices as an answer as well (if you're looking for something that can be drawn from the biblical texts). The basic idea is that angelic forces (often referred to as the "principalities and powers" in Scripture) are able to exercise their free will in such a way that it affects nature itself. That's not to say that there's a specific angel/demon behind every specific event that happens in nature, but it's rather a blanket statement about why the "natural" order of things doesn't always seem to reflect God's intended design. And the theory concludes that all of creation itself will be redeemed in the age to come. I find it rather interesting.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 25, 2018 19:02:18 GMT
I tend to think of God™ the Creator as separate from God™ the personal saviour. God™ the creator set up a creation which has certain rules, rather he set up the rules that would result in creation, but did not fine tweak when things went a certain way, I feel the same about evolution, God set up the rules for evolution and let them run their course, the rules that set up nature are the same. Are you familiar with the concept of spiritual warfare and the corruption of creation? That suffices as an answer as well (if you're looking for something that can be drawn from the biblical texts). The basic idea is that angelic forces (often referred to as the "principalities and powers" in Scripture) are able to exercise their free will in such a way that it affects nature itself. That's not to say that there is a specific angel/demon behind every specific event that happens in nature, but it's rather a blanket statement about why the "natural" order of things doesn't always seem to reflect God's intended design. And the theory concludes that all of creation itself will be redeemed in the age to come. I find it rather interesting. It is interesting, in that way Angels are part of the things that God™ has set up and allows to run as they will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 19:12:51 GMT
No, I don't care what meanings you attempt to apply to words. All definitions are arbitrary. No, you don't care at all. That's why you bring it up and whine about it, over and over and over and over again. Because you don't care. As for your pretending that science is a religion, as another poster pointed out - you might want to be careful about that. If science were a religion, your own religion would pale in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jan 25, 2018 19:17:36 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? when faith revolves around spirit voodoo and the like, faith is a complete waste of time and energy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 19:37:42 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? What's it good for?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2018 0:11:24 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? What's it good for? Sometimes it's necessary. There are questions science cannot answer. Science can only solve problems when everyone agrees what the problem is. When people can't agree what the problem is, then science is utterly useless. Most of the important issues in society are issues because people cannot agree what the problem is. Do the math, science is useless to solve the most important problems in the world. The junior "scientists" on this board are only beginning to realize that. They still think all the world's problems would be solved if only people believed in science instead of a god. The funny part is how much smarter they think they are than anyone else. In these cases faith is only "good" in that you know you need it and don't delude yourself about what science can do. Edit> I have a second point I had forgotten to add. Faith is efficient. It saves a lot of trouble when people just do what they are told without questioning everything. It saves a lot of people from trying the wrong thing only to find out the authorities were right all along on that point. One tiny problem with this plan, it only works when authority knows what to do. People who are not any good at discovering the best path sometimes gain the upper hand and become a misguided authority. Now you need some deep thinkers to come to the rescue. The problem with the Republican Party is that it is dominated by people who believe in doing what they are told. It doesn't mean they believe in a god. Those two things are often mixed up. The same problem exists as with too much "faith" in whatever, authority slides off track.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 26, 2018 0:55:15 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? What's it good for? I can think of one thing. If a normally unreliable person was moved to do the right thing because someone else put their faith in him to do the right thing, then faith served a beneficial purpose.
|
|