evolution vs. biblical theory

[vences5]

"The Intelligent design hypothesis has one major flaw: it requires one to believe that a competent, thinking, omnipotent, divine being created the platypus: a venomous, egg-laying, duck billed mammal."   Anonymous

The platypus is proof that God has sense of humor. 

Science cannot account for everything.

There are a large number of things that cannot be scientifically proven, but we are all rational to accept. Here are five rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science:

1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them),
2. metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own),
3. ethical judgements (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method),
4. aesthetic judgements (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and, ironically
5. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself)

And that's all I'll say today, to keep it short .

[i_m_robot]

now we are getting somewhere

[Nightscape]

The platypus is proof that God has sense of humor. 

Or, perhaps it proves God is just plain mean.

1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them),

Science does not presuppose mathematics, as it was discovered by primitive humans using simple observation.  Since then, mathematics has been used as a tool for science.  As for logic, it is mind-bending to think about proving it, but here is something you can try.  Simple logic tells us that slicing off our hand with a knife would result in the loss of a hand (duh, right!?).  We know this, even if we have not experienced the slicing of our hand - as many here would put it, we have faith in logic.  But the difference here is that we can test our faith.  Take the knife and actually slice off your hand and see what happens.  You'll find that your logic is correct!

2. metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own),

What about CAT scans, that clearly show certain areas of the brain are stimulated whenever you think about certain things?  When asked to remember childhood memories, for example, certain parts of the brain show more activity than usual.  Isn't this evidence of a "mind"?

3. ethical judgements (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method)

Assuming that all morals are relative, then yes, you cannot prove good or evil.  But if you treat "morality" as a scientific concept and lay down rules along the lines of Isaac Asimov's Three Rules, then ethical judgements can become scientific.  Besides, there is an ethical way of thinking that invloves using logic to determine what would be best for yourself - that ethics reasoning for you.  Now this is of course all very arbitrary, but still it is science.

4. aesthetic judgements (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and, ironically

Actually there have been many studies on beauty that show a general trend among humans.  For example, a survery was given across many nations and cultures (including primitive tribal ones) and in the survey, participants were asked to rank 25 faces in order from most to least attractive.  Results differed little, regardless of where the survey was given.  This suggests that within all humans, there is a very powerful way of "determining" if something is beautiful or not.  Scientists could then use the survey data to come up with criteria for a "beautiful" face - criteria that surely not everyone agrees with, but critera that almost everybody would agree with.  Among the criteria were listed symmetry, facial features porportional to the golden ratio, and skin smoothness.  Similar studies could easily be done using other things besides a human face, and results would be similar.  Of course, scientists don't know exactly why humans find symmetry and golden ratios attractive, but I suspect that they will eventually.

5. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself)

Never really thought of this myself, but let's do it just to be pedantic.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
I have observed that the scientific method frequently delivers consistent information, and the information generated by the scientific method is of practical application in the world around us.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
It follows, then that the scientific method itself works in such a way, as to deliver correct and useful information.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena.
If the scientific method works in a way that delivers truth, that means that results given by the scientific method must themselves also work in a way that delivers truth.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
I can't do this by myself, but I can contribute.

Observation: In olden times, a trip to the butcher with an animal carcass meant that inevitably one would have to battle flies the whole way.  Obviously, the rotting meat that had been hanging in the sun all day was the source of the flies.  Where do the flies at the butcher shop really come from? Does rotting meat turn into or produce the flies?

Hypothesis: Rotten meat does not turn into flies. Only flies can make more flies.

Prediction: If meat cannot turn into flies, rotting meat in a sealed (fly-proof) container should not produce flies or maggots.

Testing: Wide-mouth jars each containing a piece of meat are subjected to several variations of “openness” while all other variables were kept the same. Presence or absence of flies and maggots seen in each jar was recorded. In the control group of jars, flies were seen entering the jars. Later, maggots, then more flies were seen on the meat. In the gauze-covered jars, no flies were seen in the jars, but were observed around and on the gauze, and later a few maggots were seen on the meat. In the sealed jars, no maggots or flies were ever seen on the meat.

Conclusion(s): Only flies can make more flies. In the uncovered jars, flies entered and laid eggs on the meat. Maggots hatched from these eggs and grew into more adult flies. Adult flies laid eggs on the gauze on the gauze-covered jars. These eggs or the maggots from them dropped through the gauze onto the meat. In the sealed jars, no flies, maggots, nor eggs could enter, thus none were seen in those jars. Maggots arose only where flies were able to lay eggs.

This test of the scientific method clearly shows that the results it delivers are truthful and accurate.  Would anyone else like to test the method?

-----
But my real question is why did you bring this up?  Are these supposed gaps in scientific knowledge enough to turn one away from evolution and towards creationism?  Sadly, the common tactic of a creationist is to attack evolution when any fault or inconsistancy is seen, while giving little or no proof of thier own stance. (If you didn't mean to do this, just ignore this!)

[Nightscape]

This is also something that has been bugging me.  Creationists attack evolutionists because they have "faith" in evolution - why not put that "faith" in God?

But remember that the word 'faith', like the word 'vision', has two definitions.

First definition:

'Belief in a supernatural or divine force'

Second definition:

'Founded confidence in a plan, theory, person, or device'

So whilst evolutionists have "faith" in evolution, that "faith" is backed up and founded by strong evidence for its existance.  An evolutionist does not believe that evolution is a supernatural or divine occurance.  This differs from a religious person, becuase thier faith in Christianity, or Islam, or Creationism is based on the belief that those concepts are of supernatural or divine origin.

[vences5]

( Just dropped by to check, but I'm in a hurry. I'll answer your questions as soon as I can. Just don't think I'll ignore the post you typed. TTYL!)

[i_m_robot]

This is also something that has been bugging me.  Creationists attack evolutionists because they have "faith" in evolution - why not put that "faith" in God?

But remember that the word 'faith', like the word 'vision', has two definitions.

First definition:

'Belief in a supernatural or divine force'

Second definition:

'Founded confidence in a plan, theory, person, or device'

So whilst evolutionists have "faith" in evolution, that "faith" is backed up and founded by strong evidence for its existance.  An evolutionist does not believe that evolution is a supernatural or divine occurance.  This differs from a religious person, becuase thier faith in Christianity, or Islam, or Creationism is based on the belief that those concepts are of supernatural or divine origin.

they could correlate instead of exist as two extremes as most make them

creationism- god created stuff

evolutionism- stuff came from stuff

combined- god created stuff the created stuff or stuff came from stuff that was created by god

pregnant dog

[Nightscape]

they could correlate instead of exist as two extremes as most make them

creationism- god created stuff

evolutionism- stuff came from stuff

combined- god created stuff the created stuff or stuff came from stuff that was created by god

pregnant dog

Ha!  I never said this wasn't a possibility.  In this case, you would beleive in both evolution, and a form of creationism.  You would have "faith" in evolution, due to the evidence backing it up, and you would also have "faith" in God, due to your belief of a higher power.

[i_m_robot]

 

.....

[vences5]

I said this because there are people that believe that science can explain everything (like Daevren). As we can see, this is not correct. That's all I wanted to say.

"Or, perhaps it proves God is just plain mean."

Lol, I was just quoting a famous bumper sticker.

Your response to #1: Like I said, science cannot prove math or logic,  but we know that they are true by using our heads.

"mathematics has been used as a tool for science"
This is what I was trying to say by "science presupposes math" Logic is also a tool for science, therefore you can't prove logic by using science, because logic is part of science.

Re:#2: Check out "Metaphysics" at wikipedia.com.

Re:#3: Are you talking about Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics?

Re: #4: 
"scientists don't know exactly why humans find symmetry and golden ratios attractive"
This is what I was pointng out. Until they find out, this will be in this list .

Re:#5: "Would anyone else like to test the method?"
 We are rational enough to accept it. You can't use science to prove it true, but we know it's true.

I won't respond to the second post, because I don't do that .

[Derek]

God created everything.

I win.

[Daevren]

Vences5, I didn't say anything like that. Saying evolution is a good theory is in no way saying that science has questions for everything.

[Torp]

God created everything.

I win.

What did you win?

[i_m_robot]

God created everything.

I win.

*in an incredibly nerdy voice*

well, hehe, that has yet to be proven using scientific methods, therefore it holds untrue

it can not be proven through logic experimentation and thus remain only a theory

given that this theory is based on the spiritual rather than the logic, hehe, because they obviously cant coexist, it can be logically inferred that this inference wont hold up under  intense and logical examination

in others words hehe

logic is god and even though logic is still somewhat abstract and it can no more prove something than the belief in a higher power

hehe

[Nightscape]

Your response to #1: Like I said, science cannot prove math or logic,  but we know that they are true by using our heads.

"mathematics has been used as a tool for science"
This is what I was trying to say by "science presupposes math" Logic is also a tool for science, therefore you can't prove logic by using science, because logic is part of science.

Just because something is part of science, doesn't mean it can't be proven.  What about gravity?  It's an important concept in science, and can be proven.  My point is that we already have proven mathematics and logic because they are human inventions to help us understand the world.  We don't just "know" or "believe" instrinsicly that math works, we can observe it with our very eyes and see that it is truthful and accurate.  There are many theories and laws and devices that science uses as tools, but science only would use them if they are proven to be useful.

Re:#2: Check out "Metaphysics" at wikipedia.com.

  I did a bit of research into what metaphysics is.  Metaphysics: "The study of the fundamental nature of being and reality; supposedly distinct from physics, as it attempts to consider issues concerning the existence and nature of non-physical entities"
As far as I'm concerned, this branch of "physics" is about as useful as Astrology.  Interesting, yes, but this isn't real science and you're right in that science can't prove it.

Re:#3: Are you talking about Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics?

Actually, yes I was referring to that.  Only I suggested something akin to it, something like the laws, but for humans.

Re: #4: 
"scientists don't know exactly why humans find symmetry and golden ratios attractive"
This is what I was pointng out. Until they find out, this will be in this list .

I suppose I misspoke here. One theory is that symmetry and porportional features indicates health and good genes - keep in mind that we're talking about prehistoric times, so when I say symmetry I mean "at least somewhat" symmetrical -  symmetrical enough to show that you have no marring diseases.  Having a perfectly beautiful face, as would have been impossible in prehistoric times, is of course no indicator of health.

Re:#5: "Would anyone else like to test the method?"
 We are rational enough to accept it. You can't use science to prove it true, but we know it's true.

But why do we "know" it's true? Rational humans only accept information by instinct and by reasoning akin to the scientific method.  Since I doubt science is "instinct", that means you must be able to reason to yourself, in a manner similar to the scientific method, that science actually works! 

[i_m_robot]

Just because something is part of science, doesn't mean it can't be proven.  What about gravity?  It's an important concept in science, and can be proven.  My point is that we already have proven mathematics and logic because they are human inventions to help us understand the world.  We don't just "know" or "believe" instrinsicly that math works, we can observe it with our very eyes and see that it is truthful and accurate.  There are many theories and laws and devices that science uses as tools, but science only would use them if they are proven to be useful.
 

hey for all we know gravity could be invisible being that pull objects toward other objects through sheer instinct

we know it exist and how to calculate it, but we dont know know why or how it exist

[Daevren]

Science is true.

All the major theories hold under most or all circumstances. We can't prove they always work. We can't prove that the laws of science don't become obsolite tomorrow because the laws of the universe have changed. But that is not important. It never happened before so we suppose it will not happen tomorrow. The theories make accurate predictios and give results. Science works. We don't need to prove anything else.

[i_m_robot]

Science is true.

All the major theories hold under most or all circumstances. We can't prove they always work. We can't prove that the laws of science don't become obsolite tomorrow because the laws of the universe have changed. But that is not important. It never happened before so we suppose it will not happen tomorrow. The theories make accurate predictios and give results. Science works. We don't need to prove anything else.

now that answer makes about as much sense as the bible huggers'

and your complete involvement in science is somewhat scary

one must be logical but also one must respect the unknown

[Nightscape]

hey for all we know gravity could be invisible being that pull objects toward other objects through sheer instinct

we know it exist and how to calculate it, but we dont know know why or how it exist

We know that gravity results from positive-negative attraction, not some invisible being.

But as we don't know all of the secrets of the universe, I for one don't know why you insist on being so aggravating!  Are you trying to subtly tell me that because we don't know everything, we should believe in God?  If so, that is the weakest form of argument.... a stronger and more persuasive argument would be providing evidence of God, instead of complaining of a lack of evidence on science's part.

[jhon]

What SCIENCE claims:

"To see is to believe."

cost (cause) - "seeing" (experience)
price (effect) - "believing" (rationale)

What RELIGION claims:

"Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe."

cost (cause) - "believing" (rationale)
price (effect) - "seeing" (experience)

Charles Darwin claims his Theory of Evolution to be TRUE as if "he have 'seen' (knew) it all."  But as an imperfect being like me, how can I "believe" him?  How can I be sure that he really "saw" the necessary details, facts, and figures in studying this critical subject matter? 

On the other hand, like Darwin, the Bible too claims the Theory of Creation to be TRUE.  But unlike Darwin's case, it's NOT smply the bible itself claming "to see (know) it all" - rather, it's GOD Himself who claim such!  The bible is a actually a TESTIMONY of people (the writers) who BELIEVE (through FAITH) and in return, SEE!  They didn't "see" such creation literally for they belong to the ones created; but the one who explains such creation in the bible is the CREATOR Himself - GOD.  Thus, why should I doubt JUST because of this ILLOGICAL reason of not having seen myself being created?  In the case of Evolution, I really NEED to "see" for me to "believe."  But I also know, those Biology and Anthropology textbooks are as limited as Charles Darwin himself; thus, I may just be seeing a glimpse of reality.  But in Creation, I already DO "believe" even without "seeing" because it is the Creator's word Himself - God - so, what will I still look for?  It's all have been answered for me.   

So, in conclusion, I only TRUST Darwin; I'm not FAITHFUL to him. 

Many consider how "irrational" Christianity is and this is why I have always strived to be a "rational" Christian, using even human reason in explaining the realm of spirituality (which is alsmot impossible).  All this testimonies of mine have only been possible through my FAITH in God.  I know that starting to have such faith is the hardest part - as you are almost clueless and illogical; but all you have to do is to give it at least a TRY.  I'm sure God is worth MORE than your 2 cents!     

I hope I have inspired Christians out there!  God bless... 

Who says Christianity can't be this rational?   

[Daevren]

Science doesn't seek to claim the truth itself. Science tries to make models that make accurate predictions. It does not matter how 'true' the model itself is.

one must be logical but also one must respect the unknown

This is something all scientists do. Christianity already assumes there is some kind of universal truth. Science does not. Science creates models that explain what we see. It doens't matter if evolution is true or not. We observe evolution, therefore we must assume it is true. Now the evolutionary model also makes accurate predictions and helps making medicine, fighting epidemics, explains why creatures are the way they are. So Darwinism/evolution is a succesful theory. It is not a truth like creationism.

About gravity:

There is no negativity in gravity. Gravity is like electromagnetism, but everything is positive. All energy is charged positive, all mass is positive.

The formula for gravity is: F = (G * m1*m2) / r^2

So m1 and m2 are always positive and G is a universal constant. So the force is also positive. This means gravity must always be repulsive or attractive. We know it is the first.

We know it can't be an invisible creature pulling on objects. Firstly because gravity reacts at the speed of light. Secondly, because gravity works over distances of 15 billion light years (and more if the universe is bigger). Thirdly because we never observe those creatures. Fourthly because even the smallest particles are affected by gravity (particles much much smaller than invisible creatures). Fifthly because even the biggest objects are affected by gravity (black holes would destroy the creatures throught gravity, but they make gravity according to this model, so it is wrong).

And what does this add? Why would we want to have this model? It doesn't add anything. Remember Occam's Razor. It is not always true, but it is very effective.

Jhon, I don't understand anything of what you say. I must say this is quite a irrational post if you ask me. When you start comparing scientific models with theological models you already took the wrong turn if you ask me.

[Torp]

one must be logical but also one must respect the unknown

Respect for the unknown is science's greatest asset.  Science seeks to understand the unknown and the vast universe of unanswered questions and discovery just waiting out there.  In religion there is nothing unknown.  The answer to everything in religion is always the same.  "I don't know how it works, so god must have done it."

How can I be sure that he really "saw" the necessary details, facts, and figures in studying this critical subject matter?

The funny thing is, if you asked this same type of question about the bible and its story of creation you would find that there is no evidence to support the biblical claims of creation or the subsequent Noahic flood.  Just because you've chosen to believe that the bible is the written word of god does not make it evidence.

[jhon]

1) Science doesn't seek to claim the truth itself. Science tries to make models that make accurate predictions. It does not matter how 'true' the model itself is...

2) Jhon, I don't understand anything of what you say. I must say this is quite a irrational post if you ask me. When you start comparing scientific models with theological models you already took the wrong turn if you ask me.

1) So, science merely approximates the truth...

2) Yes, it's somewhat irrational to combine science and theology but the title itself of this topic fosters such inevitable comparison for me...and sorry if you don't understand...

[i_m_robot]

We know that gravity results from positive-negative attraction, not some invisible being.

But as we don't know all of the secrets of the universe, I for one don't know why you insist on being so aggravating!  Are you trying to subtly tell me that because we don't know everything, we should believe in God?  If so, that is the weakest form of argument.... a stronger and more persuasive argument would be providing evidence of God, instead of complaining of a lack of evidence on science's part.

self has done nothing but suggest that we not hold on to one idea too strongly

self is not arguing but suggesting

you seem to have a habit of misinterpreting self

there may be a god there may not be one

no one knows

if you are agrevated it is your own fault

[Torp]

1) So, science merely approximates the truth...

This is a good way to think about the scientific method.  However, it is often used by creationists as a way to denigrate the concepts.  The scientific method works from an assumption that its theories, laws, and suppositions could be proven wrong at any moment.  This basic assumption is what keeps scientists in all fields working towards the refinement of ever better theories.

The scientific method presupposes that there are no external, supernatural forces acting in the universe.  On that assumption, science seeks to develop theories that explain how things work.  The knowledge is cumulative.

2) Yes, it's somewhat irrational to combine science and theology but the title itself of this topic fosters such inevitable comparison for me...and sorry if you don't understand...

The only time it becomes irrational is when you don't use the same rationale for each part of the discussion.  If you require "proof" in order to feel that science has value, then, if you're rational, you would require equivalent "proof" on behalf of religion.  If, on the other hand, you wish to talk about believing in religion because of faith (which is just another word for choice) and then attempt to use lack of proof as your rationale against science then your argument doesn't hold much water.

self has done nothing but suggest that we not hold on to one idea too strongly

Pretty much the whole idea behind the scientific method.

you seem to have a habit of misinterpreting self

If self is continually feeling that self is being misinterpreted it may have something to do with self's chosen communication style. 

there may be a god there may not be one

no one knows

No one knows anything for sure.  This, too, is the basis for the scientific method, to try and figure it out.  The problem often lies with arguing between an evidential-based system vs a faith-based system.  The scientific method utilizes evidence to support or refute theories and assumptions.  Religion uses faith alone as its "proof."

[Nightscape]

self has done nothing but suggest that we not hold on to one idea too strongly

self is not arguing but suggesting

you seem to have a habit of misinterpreting self

there may be a god there may not be one

no one knows

if you are agrevated it is your own fault

No, I'm not really aggravated... just a little confused about your motives.  But then again, I think most people have a hard time understanding you.  So if I misinterpret you, it's not because I'm irrational, but rather that you have difficulty communicating your thoughts to me in writing.

Thanks, Daevren, for clearing up gravity for me.  I was a little unsure of what I wrote, but knew it definately wasn't an invisible being!

And as for Jhon, I suggest you read my post about faith, because you, like many others, have misunderstood the meaning of the words faith and trust.  Your sentence

"So, in conclusion, I only TRUST Darwin; I'm not FAITHFUL to him"

makes no sense from a logical standpoint, because:

A)  Darwin is not, and does not, claim to be God or God-like.
B)  Another definition of faith, you cannot TRUST Darwin unless you also have some FAITH in him.
C)  Another definition of faithful has to do with adultry, but I doubt that's an issue here.

"Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe."

This is not the definition of faith, but rather the exact definition of delusion.

cost (cause) - "believing" (rationale)
price (effect) - "seeing" (experience)

One interesting thing about the human mind, is how powerful denial and delusion can be.  If one wants to believe something, there comes a point where if you believe in it hard enough, you actually begin to believe it is true.  In other words, you begin to lie to yourself and believe your own lie.  It helps, too, that other people feel the same way.  The human mind is so powerful, that with a bit of coaxing, and little loss of reason, your imagination can come to life and present you with whatever you desire.

What do people desire then?  They desire answers, and they are so impatient that they desire them immediately.  Sadly, Science cannot provide immediate answers or for that matter answers these people want.  So the only alternative is to create your own answers.

[Daevren]

1) So, science merely approximates the truth...

Yes, where religions often bluntly claims to know absolute divine truths without any evidence at all good scientists realise that people cannot touch truth itself. It may not even exist.

When I say science only approximates the truth I don't want to imply that is a weakness. It is just being realistic. I think science does the best job of trying to reach out and touch the truth.


In some sence science does not try to find out why things work, but how they work. At least, this is the limit because we cannot observe and measure everything.



If you look at how Newtons classical laws changed into Einsteins relativistic laws you see what happens to a scientific theory proven wrong. This way you also know what will happen when scientists prove Darwinism wrong.

As for how true Newtons laws are, they explain all your average every day thing as accurate as needed. So they are quite 'true' even though we now know they are incorrect and give inaccurate results when we talk about objects moving very close to light speed.


As for Jhon, it doesn't make any difference whenether I like Charles Darwin, trust him, or whatever. I don't need to trust Darwin. I don't need to trust anyone. I don't need to put my faith in anything. The fact that I support Darwin has nothing to do with him in person. I never read his book and I don't know anything about what kind of person he is. What I did was read some books on the topic. Then I looked around at nature. I can't see how one could look at nature and thing everything was created. Nature looks obviously evolved to me.

[bernhard]

.

The only time it becomes irrational is when you don't use the same rationale for each part of the discussion.  If you require "proof" in order to feel that science has value, then, if you're rational, you would require equivalent "proof" on behalf of religion.  If, on the other hand, you wish to talk about believing in religion because of faith (which is just another word for choice) and then attempt to use lack of proof as your rationale against science then your argument doesn't hold much water.

The problem with irrational people is that the only thing you can give them to be rational are reasons.

And I read this somewhere:

"A philosopher is a blind guy, in a pitch black room looking for a black cat who is not there. A theologian is the guy shouting: I found it, I found it!"

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Torp]

"A philosopher is a blind guy, in a pitch black room looking for a black cat who is not there. A theologian is the guy shouting: I found it, I found it!"

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Great quote, thanks.

[pianonut]

people doubted Christ when he lived and walked on the earth.  even one of his disciples doubted.  that's because He didn't tell us EVERYTHING at once.  line upon line is how teachers do it.  He did give us enough knowledge to know right from wrong, and how to treat our neighbor.

i do understand the theory behind not associating with 'idiots.'  even though Christ himself gave us a warning not to call other people idiots.  occasionally one side or the other thinks the other is irrational, but the side that wins is the polite side (which may be either).  if you are evolutionist but not judgemental, perhaps God will be merciful.  If you are a Christian, and don't pound people's heads, perhaps you'll be allowed into the animal kingdom and be categorized and placed appropriately (hopefully somewhere above substrata).  even though i personally don't believe that we are animals, i treat my pets as though they are human.

it's funny, but i have very many close friends that are a) evolutionists  b) agnostic  and c) just don't know     one was a neighbor in our old neighborhood.   she and her husband were extremely friendly, though, so we agreed to disagree and often had a cold drink and sat on the porch together and talked.  they still write me and visa-versa.  if you simply eliminate people because they think differently, you won't get the joy from having many friends instead of a few.  and, you never know when you might need a friend!

 

[Nightscape]

pianonut, you have some good ideas there.  Many of my friends don't share thier views with me, yet I don't see fit to judge them, or cut them out.  Although sometimes I do try and figure out how they got to thinking that way!

[pianonut]

yes.  discussion without judgement.  and then you can go back home and think about things said and study them for yourself.  i've learned a lot from  people who are willing to share and disagree on some things and agree on others, but do it with a friendly spirit. 

[vences5]

Most of my good friends are atheists. 

Just because something is part of science, doesn't mean it can't be proven.  What about gravity?  It's an important concept in science, and can be proven.  My point is that we already have proven mathematics and logic because they are human inventions to help us understand the world.  We don't just "know" or "believe" instrinsicly that math works, we can observe it with our very eyes and see that it is truthful and accurate.  There are many theories and laws and devices that science uses as tools, but science only would use them if they are proven to be useful.
  I did a bit of research into what metaphysics is.  Metaphysics: "The study of the fundamental nature of being and reality; supposedly distinct from physics, as it attempts to consider issues concerning the existence and nature of non-physical entities"
As far as I'm concerned, this branch of "physics" is about as useful as Astrology.  Interesting, yes, but this isn't real science and you're right in that science can't prove it.

Actually, yes I was referring to that.  Only I suggested something akin to it, something like the laws, but for humans.
I suppose I misspoke here. One theory is that symmetry and porportional features indicates health and good genes - keep in mind that we're talking about prehistoric times, so when I say symmetry I mean "at least somewhat" symmetrical -  symmetrical enough to show that you have no marring diseases.  Having a perfectly beautiful face, as would have been impossible in prehistoric times, is of course no indicator of health.

But why do we "know" it's true? Rational humans only accept information by instinct and by reasoning akin to the scientific method.  Since I doubt science is "instinct", that means you must be able to reason to yourself, in a manner similar to the scientific method, that science actually works! 

I should have typed a little more ( I try to keep things as short as possible).

"Just because something is part of science, doesn't mean it can't be proven.  What about gravity?"

Sorry, I meant a tool in the scientific method. Gravity is not a tool, logic is.

"we can observe it with our very eyes and see that it is truthful and accurate"

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. We can see with our eyes that it is truthful and accurate, but we can't use the scientific method to prove it right.


"Actually, yes I was referring to that.  Only I suggested something akin to it, something like the laws, but for humans."

Excuse my unsuperior word usage skills . Those laws are criticized because they do not have anything in regards to sex. Also, using those laws, working for a tobacco factory would be considered immoral.

[vences5]

"A philosopher is a blind guy, in a pitch black room looking for a black cat who is not there. A theologian is the guy shouting: I found it, I found it!"

How does the person saying the quote know that the cat isn't there?

The problem with irrational people is that the only thing you can give them to be rational are reasons.

lol, what else can you give them?

[jhon]

Jhon wrote: So, science merely approximates the truth...

Yes, where religions often bluntly claims to know absolute divine truths without any evidence at all good scientists realise that people cannot touch truth itself. It may not even exist.

Jhon wrote: How can I be sure that he really "saw" the necessary details, facts, and figures in studying this critical subject matter?

The funny thing is, if you asked this same type of question about the bible and its story of creation you would find that there is no evidence to support the biblical claims of creation or the subsequent Noahic flood.  Just because you've chosen to believe that the bible is the written word of god does not make it evidence.

I'm just giving science a dose of its own medicine.  Requiring evidences to believe something theological is a wrong premise.  Evidences is for science, faith is for religion.  Now, arguing about faith in the light of reason is something irrational as faith is something beyong human reason, if you ask me.

[Nightscape]

I'm just giving science a dose of its own medicine.  Requiring evidences to believe something theological is a wrong premise.  Evidences is for science, faith is for religion.  Now, arguing about faith in the light of reason is something irrational as faith is something beyong human reason, if you ask me.

You can't argue without reason, as reasoning forms the foundation of any rational argument.  Therefore, since you say that "faith is beyond human reason", that means that faith can't be argued for or against.

If faith can't be argued, then you have no ability to say that you either do or don't have it.  According to you then, you saying "I have faith in God" is completely irrational, since you would have know way of proving to anyone - not me, not yourself, and not even God - that you in fact do have faith in God.  If faith is beyond reason, than that means that you can't even believe you have faith, since believing in something requires that you affirm to it in your own mind, in other words, you have to reason to yourself that faith is a necessary thing to have.

But likely you will say that you do in fact have faith regardless of what I say.  If you believe you have faith, and that that is your strongest and most solid belief, then that means that at some point in your life, you came to understand (in other words, you reasoned to yourself) that faith was real, and that your faith would allow you to trust and and feel the presence of God.  If you can reason to yourself that faith is real, and that you have it, than that means others can too.  If you can reason to yourself that faith is real, than that means you can reason it to other people too - you have the ability to show them and tell them that you have faith.  If you have the ability to show them and tell them that you have faith, than that means you have the ability to argue that you have it.  If you have the ability to argue that you have it,  it means that the principles of logic and reason can be applied in an argument for or against faith.  And finally, if the principles of logic and reason can be applied in an argument for or against faith, than that means that faith is in fact within the grasp of human reason.

[asyncopated]

I haven't really followed the whole thread, but the most recent line of though seems to have transcended evolution (sorry about the self-ref) and have gone into some obscure philosophical discussion about truth and faith. 

I like obscure philosophical discussions.

I would just like to add that it was never the place of science to proof or disproof god, but it has for a long time in the favour of the church to discredit science.  (Thankfully not anymore.)

The other thing I would like to point out is that science is a system of faith.  It is a model of how the universe works.  It is not truth.  You have to have faith that newton's laws do describe all moving things and will continue do so tomorrow and the day after.  The belief is only affirmed by us being able to use this knowledge constantly.   We make planes that fly, make cars that drive, and sometimes send stuff to mars.  Somebody commented that to send a space shuttle to mars you need more accuracy than piercing a fly and hitting the bull’s eye at the same time in a darts game.  You have to believe that newton's laws will still hold tomorrow and the day after.   So far, there hasn't been much reason to doubt these ideas as a model of how our universe works.  However, they are not failsafe, as we have learnt  -- relativity and quantum mechanics are instances were newton's laws do breakdown. I.e. when we deal with the very fast or the very small.

The difference between faith in science and faith in religion is a matter of blindness.  Religion usually asks that you believe in something, without giving a way to reliably tested/measure the claim. 

It is not an indictment on religion.  It is just the nature of religion.  If one could repeatedly test if after death, whether there really is eternal life, the way we see god, life and death wouldn’t really be the same, would it?

[Daevren]

You have to have faith that newton's laws do describe all moving things and will continue do so tomorrow and the day after.

No you don't. You must assume this. I pointed out this before. Not sure if this is a reaction about what I wrote. You really need a lot of faith to think the laws of nature will work different tomorrow. Or that when you throw up a ball gravity makes an exception and it just flies out of orbit. When you play soccer of football or basketball do you distrust the laws of nature? Are you ready for a situation where gravity reverses? Or where gravity becomes 20 times as strong, turning almost every object in the universe into a black hole? Does this take faith? Does it take faith to know that when performing on a piano that the laws of sound stay the same? Are you nervous for these performanced because you fear these laws will change and  mess up your performance? Of course not. Does it take a lot of faith to not fear those things?

This never happens, why tomorrow? We don't even know if it is in theory possible for the laws of nature to change. As far as we know they never changed in the last 13,6 billion years. You don't make unfounded assumtions. Thus we are forced to assume this will not change. It doesn't even matter how likely you find this or how much you trust this, you must. (Human) Logic dictates this.

So it does not take faith.

[i_m_robot]

We know it can't be an invisible creature pulling on objects. Firstly because gravity reacts at the speed of light. Secondly, because gravity works over distances of 15 billion light years (and more if the universe is bigger). Thirdly because we never observe those creatures. Fourthly because even the smallest particles are affected by gravity (particles much much smaller than invisible creatures). Fifthly because even the biggest objects are affected by gravity (black holes would destroy the creatures throught gravity, but they make gravity according to this model, so it is wrong).

that was just an example 

course there arent invisible beings behind gravity (or are there )

we understand the how

but what we dont know is the why

do all the blocks exist solely to support life?

is the universe a giant being in itself?

perhaps it just a spark in a show of fireworks on a larger scale

So it does not take faith

but it cant hurt right

P.S.

dont take these literally

or break them down as logical arguments

and try and shove them back in selfs face

they are merely selfs thoughts at this moment

P.S.S.

Sr member

[i_m_robot]

No, I'm not really aggravated... just a little confused about your motives.  But then again, I think most people have a hard time understanding you.  So if I misinterpret you, it's not because I'm irrational, but rather that you have difficulty communicating your thoughts to me in writing.

actually they are simple and meant to be taken as written, or laughed off as complete sarcasm

though self will admit they are not often well thought out

you say that not believing in a god because there is lack of evidence on sciences part  is a weak argument (though it was just a suggestion)

this may or may not go somewhere


the faith based observation is to believe in the devine unless (and sometimes even though) there is a way to explain it scientifically

the logical base is to observe something and continue to make observations until there is proof of a higher order ( and sometimes attempt rationalize in face of it)

.....

uh...

because the...

what self means is....

*in an incredibly nerdy voice*

Given that the observation of a fundamental particle changes what we actually know about the particle, it can be inferred that fully grasping the nature such a of particle within the universe will (through time) be grasped only within a certain uncertainty (call it ε). If such an ε could be reduced to am almost trivial figure, then it would mean that the understanding of what causes the phenomenon would be greatly increased (or it could be discovered by accident). However, if ε were somehow reduced to zero (with the exact speed known)  it would mean that, whether by accident or on purpose, the nature of the fundamental particle could be fully comprehended or at least manipulated. Manipulation of such a system of particles as electrons could lead to incredible technological advancements or the destruction of the universe.

 This is where the aliens come in . They clearly have advance knowledge of quantum tunneling. Therefore it can be assumed that they are not invaders planning to take over the earth but rather guardians of the universe, so to speak. They monitor the progress of humankind in technology and science, so as to prevent us from making the wrong move, and even the right moves before we are ready. It was bold undertaking on their part when they discovered the knownledge - a burden ,if you will. Nevertheless they are tireless in their efforts to prevent a catastrophe of universal proportion. Either that or they're are just wondering how could creatures so smart be so stupid.

[i_m_robot]

but seriously

the religious might believe there is a god until its disproven

the logical might believe in the process until there is logical evidence of a god

what both sides are looking for is evidence

until then both sides might only see

greater than less or less than

few might see equal

but because there is a lack of evidence of proval and disproval on both sides

then argumentation is fruitless

unless both sides work together to find a common answer

[Torp]

what both sides are looking for is evidence

While I generally agree with much of what you say (assuming of course I've understood you), but I'm not sure this part is true.  I don't get the impression that religion is seeking evidence to prove the existence of god at all.

[Daevren]

If such an ε could be reduced to am almost trivial figure, then it would mean that the understanding of what causes the phenomenon would be greatly increased (or it could be discovered by accident).

I am not sure why you brought up this? Plus you didn't type this, right? Assuming this is about Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These uncertainties are always bigger than Planck's constant. So making them 0 is not possible in this universe. The universe if fundamentally uncertain.



You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.

But if it would happen it would make no difference to many people. Reason does not matter. If reason mattered they wouldn't believe in God.

God in science doesn't explain anyhing. It will probably never be part of a scientific theory. If you try to explain the uniqueness of this universe by saying it must be created by some omnipotent entity this only worsens the problem. Who or what created God? The creation of a God creating an unique and curious universe is way stranger than the creation of only the universe.

Therefore God does not explain anything. It is also doubtfull that the existence of God makes accurate predictions. So God will probably never be part of science.

[i_m_robot]

While I generally agree with much of what you say (assuming of course I've understood you), but I'm not sure this part is true.  I don't get the impression that religion is seeking evidence to prove the existence of god at all.

they use gospel, books, and life to find the answer

a sort of spiritual research

at least the intelligent ones (yeah selfs callin you stupid ) jk

Therefore God does not explain anything. It is also doubtfull that the existence of God makes accurate predictions. So God will probably never be part of science.

based on what evidence one currently has

some believe that the birth of the universe is evidence enough

some believe that a man being killed after forsaking god (whether through chance, and even if it happens many years after sometimes) is evidence enough

what evidence, then, does it take to prove a logical individual the existence of a god?

it is purely subjective

the question: whether god created man or man created god

*enter nerdy voice once again*

Any man claiming to have knowledge of a the thoughts and working of god has clearly created god in his own image, and yet the existence of the universe suggests the existence of a higher power or a least a greater force at work. What binds matter and causes it to behave the way it does; predictable yet unpredictable; chaotic yet orderly? Perhaps it is not man's place to assume anything at all (given such a tiny hole man has to peer through). Simply living to observe means that living has no real meaning but living itself.

too many thoughts

not quick enough fingers

[Torp]

too many thoughts

not quick enough fingers

I can relate to that...

[i_m_robot]

I am not sure why you brought up this? Plus you didn't type this, right? Assuming this is about Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These uncertainties are always bigger than Planck's constant. So making them 0 is not possible in this universe. The universe if fundamentally uncertain.

of course self typed this

what you think self ignit cuz self from teh hood

and it was sarcasm mon ami

come on aliens

self lost train of though and typed whatever came

sure self can understand why it may seem that way

its quite unfathomable that a five year could possess such knowledge

 yeah and uh

little girls can come out of the tv screen too