62 replies to this topic

[Akira]

Its just as easy to accept scientific theories fed to you by your stupid ass high school teachers as the explanation to everything, as it is to accept religion.
I'm tired of hearing that God has no explanation. God is superfluous. God is a security blanket. God is convenience. Yes, religion depends a whole lot on faith. But there is also philosophical reasoning behind religion and also a way to incorporate religious thinking into the realms of science as I have attempted.

HEY! It wasn't fed to me by my stupid ass high school teachers! It was fed to me by my stupid ass middle school teachers, and there's a big difference there.

Yeah, it's easy. Wanna know why? They explain themselves. They don't demand that we accept them as fact; they have reason for why they are fact. "Gravity exists because..." "Atoms attract to make molecules because..." When is it "God exists because..."? Furthermore, science isn't saying "Hell, gravity created the universe" or "This made the universe, end of discussion". Scientists are saying "Well, this could have done it...or this could have done it..." They have plenty of theories that need more facts to become accepted theories. God? "Well, God made the universe." "Proof?" "The Bible." "Any other proof?" "Everything is perfect, which screams creator." "Any other proof?" "God has always existed, he needs no proof, etc." "Then where did God come from?" "God has always existed." "Then why can't the universe just always have existed?" "Because that is ridiculous."

There. I just self bickered.

Incorporating religion into science kind of goes with the 'God of the gaps' idea. As soon as you say 'God made this', it becomes problematic, because science eventually finds what really made it, and God withdraws. God is a lazy statement in science; a surrender or a quick fix to the solution of a problem.

Think about it. Is "God created the universe." a satisfactory statement? It can be if you put your religion before science, but if you have no religion, this is extremely unsatisfactory. What if a different answer is found? What if we discover that the universe has always existed? What if we reach a point in time where we won't need to explain something with God? They used to believe that demons caused illness, and now we know that virii and bacteria cause illness. Yet with every step forward, and every withdrawal of God, the religious grow more anxious and annoyed by scientific advancement. You have a hard time thinking about a different explanation for why the universe is here, but I really doubt that you would go crazy about someone stating that the Earth is, indeed, spherical. Nor would you grow enraged if someone said that a world wide flood did not happen. Nor would you guffaw at the statement that 'virgin', in the terms it was used in the original Bible, actually meant 'very young', which is not magical at all (minus the whole 'God did it', thing, of course). But a statement saying that God might not have caused the universe to begin (if it even did begin?) causes you to dig your heels in?

God is a security blanket, because God makes people stop searching. They don't want to discover something new in science, because that means something less for God. They don't want advancement; they want a heaven that equals a carribean cruise and a hell that equals Gitmo.

You can't mix the two; they don't work together very well. They have conflicting interests: science wants to better humanity, religion claims to want that, but only for the chosen few who actually believe the 'right' religion. There's a ton of research going into what makes people gay; being heavily backed by the catholic church, because if they can prove that it's a choice, they can condemn gays to hell, if it's a disease of some sort that changes sexual interest, they can call them fiends, and if it's genetic (implying that God made them that that way)? Well, the RCC usually has no problem with quickly adding in a new part to their bible, and they'd probably say that it's acceptable only if you apologize for being born that way and join the church.

I have no doubt that someone could believe in God and be a scientist, because there are scientists like that. If God takes the backseat in scientific study, then it's fine. But once God takes the wheel, we get derailed.

[Grizzly]

Why do you stipulate that lines and planes have to be infinite? That's not true...

Maths and science work on the microcosm, and apply it to the macrocosm altogether. Just because you don't understand, or can't see how, it ties together in the macrocosm, doesn't mean that it doesn't.
I don't think you understand Newton's third law, either. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The expansion of the universe is caused by the matter within the universe pressing on its theoretical "edge". The equal and opposite reaction to that is the edge pushing back on the matter within the universe. How is that unaccounted for?

Geometry is science. You obviously understand it in terms of geometry, why do you need another, less precise, definition?

Evolution does make sense all together, as does physics. In the case of physics, perhaps we can't specifically define it in one unifying theory, yet, but what we know clearly works, it's just a matter of doing the maths.

Religion cannot be a "missing element" in a scientific discussion, because it defines nothing. Saying goddidit is precisely the same as saying we don't know. The "theory" of a creator makes no scientific predictions, and is therefore utterly worthless in a scientific context.

I guess it's been a while since you've taken geometry. A line in geometry is defined as infinite, as is a plane. http://en.wikipedia....e_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia....e_(mathematics)
Fundamental definition of geometry. If you don't understand that, you missed my point entirely.

Infinity is fundamental to comprehend existence.

But, there is actual evidence of those events happening. There are fossil records, observed speciation events, and such events are actually plausible, and can/did happen.

However, try and give me proof that the Earth was created in a few days, or that eve was created from a rib of adam, or that the entire earth was flooded with rain.

You can't.

"One such false belief is that the scientific method can actually "prove" things. In fact, because empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities."

Edited by //F, 20 November 2007 - 08:58 PM.

[Sweeney]

I guess it's been a while since you've taken geometry. A line in geometry is defined as infinite, as is a plane. http://en.wikipedia....e_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia....e_(mathematics)
Fundamental definition of geometry. If you don't understand that, you missed my point entirely.
These are all THEORIES. Which means they are not PROVEN. They're mere assumptions based on probability and possibility and observations. (Dinosaurs did exist though, not trying to say they don't exist lol). Evolutionary theories are not proven as well either. We simply observe the traits of two different species and deduce that they might have evolved from previous ancestors.

There are mathematical ideas, which are used to formulate practical applications. An infinite line or plane is a construct, which can be modified to function in reality. They're models, nothing more.
And the rest of my post?

And you did not just use the "It's just a theory" argument, did you?
For the love of Pasta, EVERYTHING in science is a theory. Nothing apart from mathematics is provable.
Evolution is not based on homologous structures, and now only loosely based on morphology at all. It's all about the genetics now.

[Grizzly]

There are mathematical ideas, which are used to formulate practical applications. An infinite line or plane is a construct, which can be modified to function in reality. They're models, nothing more.
And the rest of my post?

And you did not just use the "It's just a theory" argument, did you?
For the love of Pasta, EVERYTHING in science is a theory. Nothing apart from mathematics is provable.
Evolution is not based on homologous structures, and now only loosely based on morphology at all. It's all about the genetics now.

No a line is infinite. As is a plane.
We simply tend to think of a line segment in replace of line and a 2d shape in place of a plane.
They're not models, they're fundamental concepts of geometry.

And exactly. 'One such false belief is that the scientific method can actually "prove" things. In fact, because empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities. Science is based All science is based upon a faith of some kind; we must all believe certain things before we can speak of science. For example, we must believe there is a real world of matter "out there" that is accessible and correlated to our senses. We must believe that our minds are giving us reliable information about the world. We must believe that language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.

What I'm simply trying to say is both religion and science rely on faith. So don't try to tell me science is right because its all proven and religion is just the easy way out. '

Edited by //F, 20 November 2007 - 09:07 PM.

[Sweeney]

No a line is infinite. As is a plane.
We simply tend to think of a line segment in replace of line and a 2d shape in place of a plane.
They're not models, they're fundamental concepts of geometry.

And exactly. 'One such false belief is that the scientific method can actually "prove" things. In fact, because empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities. Science is based All science is based upon a faith of some kind; we must all believe certain things before we can speak of science. For example, we must believe there is a real world of matter "out there" that is accessible and correlated to our senses. We must believe that our minds are giving us reliable information about the world. We must believe that language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.

What I'm simply trying to say is both religion and science rely on faith. So don't try to tell me science is right because its all proven and religion is just the easy way out. '

No, science is right, according to our current level of understanding, because it is backed up by empirical evidence. Not proven, but most certainly not disproven either.

Religion is the easy way out, because it isn't empirically testable at all. Not one single falsifiable prediction is made by religion. Ever.

[Grizzly]

No, science is right, according to our current level of understanding, because it is backed up by empirical evidence. Not proven, but most certainly not disproven either.

Religion is the easy way out, because it isn't empirically testable at all. Not one single falsifiable prediction is made by religion. Ever.

So.. something is not proven but not disproven and it's right? Okay.
And religion purposefully can not be empirically tested or it wouldn't be religion. But religion can not be proven nor disproven either. So what makes it wrong.

You can't prove religion wrong with science if neither is proven right lol.

Edited by //F, 20 November 2007 - 09:14 PM.

[Sweeney]

So.. something is not proven but not disproven and it's right? Okay.
And religion purposefully can not be empirically tested or it wouldn't be religion. But religion can not be proven nor disproven either. So what makes it wrong.

You can't prove religion wrong with science if neither is proven right lol.

You're correct. Religion cannot be disproven by science. Which is why it's not scientific. Which is why you can't postulate a valid creationist theory.

And there is a difference between unfalsifiable, and not falsified.
For example, things are kept on the ground because of gravity. Falsifiable, but not falsified.
Alternatively, things are kept on the ground with the FSM's noodly appendages. Unfalsifiable, and (obviously) not falsified.
Which one is valid?

Clearly, there is a difference between a theory based on empirical, observable evidence, and a "theory" that not only has no evidence at all, also cannot be disproven.
Ever heard of Bertrand's Teapot? Or maybe Occam's Razor?

[Grizzly]

You're correct. Religion cannot be disproven by science. Which is why it's not scientific. Which is why you can't postulate a valid creationist theory.

And there is a difference between unfalsifiable, and not falsified.
For example, things are kept on the ground because of gravity. Falsifiable, but not falsified.
Alternatively, things are kept on the ground with the FSM's noodly appendages. Unfalsifiable, and (obviously) not falsified.
Which one is valid?

Clearly, there is a difference between a theory based on empirical, observable evidence, and a "theory" that not only has no evidence at all, also cannot be disproven.
Ever heard of Bertrand's Teapot? Or maybe Occam's Razor?

Isn't religion also falsifiable but not falsified?..

And it's not like religion was pulled out of someone's ass one day and accepted by all. Moreso, it was pulled out of many asses all at once. Again, I don't believe in coincidences. Historical evidence supports religion.

FSM?? Noodly appendages?

[Sweeney]

Isn't religion also falsifiable but not falsified?..

And it's not like religion was pulled out of someone's ass one day and accepted by all. Moreso, it was pulled out of many asses all at once. Again, I don't believe in coincidences. Historical evidence supports religion.

No, religion isn't falsifiable.
Discrete practises, and naturalistic beliefs perhaps, but then they just pretend that the scripture in question was just metaphor all along.
The existence of an omniscient god is completely unfalsifiable.

FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster, the deity of the Pastafarians.

[Teddy]

You're correct. Religion cannot be disproven by science. Which is why it's not scientific. Which is why you can't postulate a valid creationist theory.

And there is a difference between unfalsifiable, and not falsified.
For example, things are kept on the ground because of gravity. Falsifiable, but not falsified.
Alternatively, things are kept on the ground with the FSM's noodly appendages. Unfalsifiable, and (obviously) not falsified.
Which one is valid?

Clearly, there is a difference between a theory based on empirical, observable evidence, and a "theory" that not only has no evidence at all, also cannot be disproven.
Ever heard of Bertrand's Teapot? Or maybe Occam's Razor?

I think most of us can clearly see it in your sig =P

I learnt in in Phil class...the simplest answer, intuitively, would be the best explanation unless shown otherwise or something like that?

[Sweeney]

I think most of us can clearly see it in your sig =P

I learnt in in Phil class...the simplest answer, intuitively, would be the best explanation unless shown otherwise or something like that?

Basically.
More accurately, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

[fruglemonkey]

"One such false belief is that the scientific method can actually "prove" things. In fact, because empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities."

Note that you avoided the question that i asked there. Is there any evidence of Christianity, or other religions? No.

And as to the inductive method, it is true that it is impossible to prove things. It is just that we observe things, and, if the same result happens over a period of time, we apply it as a general rule. >> also, it is not possible to be able to 'prove' anything. For all we know, the moon could actually be made of cheese, but, because of observations made over time, we know it is not so.

[Grizzly]

Note that you avoided the question that i asked there. Is there any evidence of Christianity, or other religions? No.

And as to the inductive method, it is true that it is impossible to prove things. It is just that we observe things, and, if the same result happens over a period of time, we apply it as a general rule. >> also, it is not possible to be able to 'prove' anything. For all we know, the moon could actually be made of cheese, but, because of observations made over time, we know it is not so.

I tried to explain it to you, but your simple mind obviously needs a yes or no to understand.
So while NO there is no proof. YES there is evidence. Historical evidence. It's not nearly as concrete as evidence as scientific and mathematical evidence but it is observational evidence.

[fruglemonkey]

I tried to explain it to you, but your simple mind obviously needs a yes or no to understand.
So while NO there is no proof. YES there is evidence. Historical evidence. It's not nearly as concrete as evidence as scientific and mathematical evidence but it is observational evidence.

Historical evidence? Please, give an example.

And please don't use insults. This is a debate, so keep it clean.

[Teddy]

Basically.
More accurately, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

The example used to illustrate this in my class was a:

1) Button, [circuit, battery,] light bulb

vs

2) Button, [circuit #1, battery, solar light buld, solar panel, circuit #2, ]shown light bulb

With the [ ] being items in a box.

[Grizzly]

No, religion isn't falsifiable.
Discrete practises, and naturalistic beliefs perhaps, but then they just pretend that the scripture in question was just metaphor all along.
The existence of an omniscient god is completely unfalsifiable.

FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster, the deity of the Pastafarians.

I feel like that potential is always there to falsify religion one day though. It partially did happen in one instance I can think of. Seventh day adventists believed that the world would come to an end on a specific date and it was set in their bible. That date passed and we're still here, so in that instance, an essential part of their religion was falsified.

And in this sense, I feel like religion is just as falsifiable as science.

Historical evidence? Please, give an example.

And please don't use insults. This is a debate, so keep it clean.

What I meant is the bible and others of that sort. A collection of primary and secondary sources. Which is what history is.

I'm sorry I insulted you but in my defense you were acting like a school boy bitch lol.

[fruglemonkey]

...So asking questions is considered as being bitchy now? Oo

And so, you are saying the bible is your evidence? Well, why cant other historical sources be used as evidence too, then? Well, would you also say, that other religions also deserve credibility and respect? The ancient mayans had historical evidence, too, y'know.

[Teddy]

I feel like that potential is always there to falsify religion one day though. It partially did happen in one instance I can think of. Seventh day adventists believed that the world would come to an end on a specific date and it was set in their bible. That date passed and we're still here, so in that instance, an essential part of their religion was falsified.

And in this sense, I feel like religion is just as falsifiable as science.



What I meant is the bible and others of that sort. A collection of primary and secondary sources. Which is what history is.

I'm sorry I insulted you but in my defense you were acting like a school boy bitch lol.

I do not think the bible says specifically what day. People just interpretted it as that date.

I think both sides have many assumptions about the other sthat are unclear about.

[Grizzly]

...So asking questions is considered as being bitchy now? Oo

And so, you are saying the bible is your evidence? Well, why cant other historical sources be used as evidence too, then? Well, would you also say, that other religions also deserve credibility and respect? The ancient mayans had historical evidence, too, y'know.

I was referring to your first post. Which wasn't so much a question as you being an annoying 8 year old schoolgirl lol.

And I absolutely do respect and am open-minded to other religions. But often religions of ancient civilizations have been.. falsified, I believe anyways. These religions often contain myths of the sun, the moon, and the seasons which have been refuted.

[fruglemonkey]

The fact that the earth was created in seven days has been refuted too. So has the giant flood, and Eve being created out of one of Adams ribs.

Edit: Ooh, I'm an advanced member now.

Edited by fruglemonkey, 20 November 2007 - 10:23 PM.

[Teddy]

The fact that the earth was created in seven days has been refuted too. So has the giant flood, and Eve being created out of one of Adams ribs.

Edit: Ooh, I'm an advanced member now.

The bible isn't meant to be take literally, especially the Old Testament.

[Grizzly]

The fact that the earth was created in seven days has been refuted too. So has the giant flood, and Eve being created out of one of Adams ribs.

Edit: Ooh, I'm an advanced member now.

Grats. But I don't believe those have been necessarily refuted. We flew to the moon and saw that it was not.. a ball of cheese. But we can't really go back in time and see our origins so much.

But either way, I don't believe any of that either. My whole topic is about accepting both science AND religion and consequently rejecting parts of it.

I do not think the bible says specifically what day. People just interpretted it as that date.

I think both sides have many assumptions about the other sthat are unclear about.

I'm referring to the 7th day adventists' bible by the way. Not the Christian Bible. But it's all a blur to me and I don't exactly remember the case and I'm way to tired now to look it up, but I believe their bible actually flat out said a date to the point where it couldn't even have been covered up as something to be not taken literally or anything of that sort. Therfore losing much support after that date. Many people killed themselves and rejected that religion that day.

You know what.. I feel like I'm lying to you because I can't remember if this was even the 7th day adventists lmao so scratch that.. I'll look it up better tomorrow

Edited by //F, 20 November 2007 - 10:32 PM.

[Sweeney]

Grats. But I don't believe those have been necessarily refuted. We flew to the moon and saw that it was not.. a ball of cheese. But we can't really go back in time and see our origins so much.

But either way, I don't believe any of that either. My whole topic is about accepting both science AND religion and consequently rejecting parts of it.
I'm referring to the 7th day adventists' bible by the way. Not the Christian Bible. But it's all a blur to me and I don't exactly remember the case and I'm way to tired now to look it up, but I believe their bible actually flat out said a date to the point where it couldn't even have been covered up as something to be not taken literally or anything of that sort. Therfore losing much support after that date. Many people killed themselves and rejected that religion that day.

If you arbitrarily reject parts of it, how can you assert that the rest of it is true?

[fruglemonkey]

The bible isn't meant to be take literally, especially the Old Testament.

...So doesn't that mean you have a license to say, oh whats that? that's not historically correct? Oh, thats not meant to be literally.

Grats. But I don't believe those have been necessarily refuted. We flew to the moon and saw that it was not.. a ball of cheese. But we can't really go back in time and see our origins so much.

But either way, I don't believe any of that either. My whole topic is about accepting both science AND religion and consequently rejecting parts of it.

But there is evidence pointing strongly agsint it. For example, sediment deposits, carbon dating, the fact that we have an even amount of ribs...

And I think that it will be very hard to accept both, as they have conflicting views of interest, and you can't fully accept one without rejecting parts of the other.

[Teddy]

If you arbitrarily reject parts of it, how can you assert that the rest of it is true?

There are 'interpreters' of the "original" bible.

I BELEIVE that Christian/Catholic/Protestant SUPPOSEDLY has the most direct version [least interpreatation included] version of the bible...

With Mormons having the FURTHEST.