religion

[Zygimantas]

 

What causes those strings to even exist? What causes nuclear forces to even exist? Even before they exist, what exists?

 

I understand where this is going now.

 

So, a fundamental particle can't just exist in the universe without a creator? What is the alternative theory? That a super-intelligent being can exist without a creator? WHY? How is that any better? What made god?

 

We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

There does not have to be a creator. Because like you said, what made god? I am not trying to point you in that direction. You think you are talking with someone who believes that there is a higher-being. You are not.

 

I just want you to think, what is before all of these forces and particles?

 

I already provided you with an answer to that question: we don't know.

So you make no guesses onto what it could be? That is great. Don't believe anything until you can be sure of it yourself. Now all you have to do is not give up on the question so fast. It's like you don't trust anything unless science tells you too.

[Myweponsg00d]

By saying that 1 = 0 you are violating one of the fundamental assumptions of mathematics.

DUH

You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different?

 

We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No.

 

However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption.

 

 

 

He could. But I am not the one saying that something can't exist within itself. My argument isn't "Where the hell did god come from? Therefore he doesn't exist" I was providing a counter for the argument "Where did the universe come from? Therefore god is reasonable?"

 

My argument is that that theory of god is totally useless, because it doesn't answer any questions. You are trying to answer "Where the hell does this all come from?" and if you say "God made it" well...then you just have god coming from nothing instead of the universe coming from nothing. It doesnt solve any problems, and it isnt an argument for god.

Here's the thing - nothing in our universe comes from nothing. Everything we see on earth is an evolution of matter that previously existed. The matter that previously existed was a further evolution of matter that previously existed, and so on, and so forth.

 

The big bang theory stipulates that there was nothing, no matter - that became matter. But if this was possible, a fundamental rule of our universe had to have been broken in order for this to happen.

If we assume that the big bang was actually the universe creating itself from nothing, then the law of the universe "nothing can come from nothing" can be considered to not be a law at all, as it would have been broken in the very creation of the universe.

 

However, if this is the case, one wonders why we see no evidence of such behavior currently. If it was possible for the universe to create itself, for nothing to come from nothing, why, then, does the same no longer apply? (at least to all we've seen thus far).

 

The only explanation is that a force to which the laws of the universe DO NOT apply had to create the universe with it's laws as present. God, thus, is a logical conclusion (or at very least, some force we know nothing of).

 

All science has told us we know, really, is how little we know.

 

You have been misinformed of what our current understanding of the "universe". Our universe is a space that does have certain laws, rules, patterns, etc. However, we operate in a very unique dimension. The big bang theory does not say that our universe came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We believe that our universe came from SOMETHING. The thing that existed before the big bang is referred to as "the singularity". We aren't yet sure what this thing is, or where it existed, but we are relatively certain that the singularity existed in some other form of space with more dimensions.

 

Also, we have observed plenty of things that violate the "common laws" of our universe, such as the behavior of photons. We used to think that "existence" means that an object is at a certain place, at a certain time, moves around predictably, etc. However, photons do not really exist in a point in space until you actually try to observe them. Until a photon is observed, it exists not as a particle but as a wave of probability. We think that the origins of the universe are something similar. The existence of the singularity is not an existence like the coffee cup on my desk. The singularity which became our 3 dimensional universe is thought of as being a "probability dot" in a multi-dimensional existence where the "rules" of our individual universe are not necessarily similar.

 

So you make no guesses onto what it could be? That is great. Don't believe anything until you can be sure of it yourself. Now all you have to do is not give up on the question so fast. It's like you don't trust anything unless science tells you too.

 

Seeing that I operate in the rest of my life based on logical conclusions that are verified with evidence, I see no reason why I should jump to conclusions about anything else.

 

If my roof started leaking, I wouldn't automatically just try to make a random guess as to the reason why and then assume I was correct. I could, for example, assume that an intelligent being is trying to sabotage me and has placed a swimming pool on my roof. I could start living like this and not go seek evidence that tells me what is actually going on.

 

Or, I could do what a rational person would do, and seek the answer for why my roof is leaking. Most people don't operate by making irrational conclusions about causation in their daily lives. I fail to see why it makes any more sense to jump to an irrational conclusion about the origins of the universe without having some type of substantial evidence for which to make a conclusion from.

[obfuscator]

 

You have been misinformed of what our current understanding of the "universe". Our universe is a space that does have certain laws, rules, patterns, etc. However, we operate in a very unique dimension. The big bang theory does not say that our universe came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We believe that our universe came from SOMETHING. The thing that existed before the big bang is referred to as "the singularity". We aren't yet sure what this thing is, or where it existed, but we are relatively certain that the singularity existed in some other form of space with more dimensions.

 

See, that's relatively unimportant because the same logic still applies to whatever existed before our current definition of the universe.

 

Also, we have observed plenty of things that violate the "common laws" of our universe, such as the behavior of photons. We used to think that "existence" means that an object is at a certain place, at a certain time, moves around predictably, etc. However, photons do not really exist in a point in space until you actually try to observe them. Until a photon is observed, it exists not as a particle but as a wave of probability. We think that the origins of the universe are something similar. The existence of the singularity is not an existence like the coffee cup on my desk. The singularity which became our 3 dimensional universe is thought of as being a "probability dot" in a multi-dimensional existence where the "rules" of our individual universe are not necessarily similar.

As before, the point still stands. Even if the origin of the universe does not have the same meaning of "existence" there is still a point where our current meaning of existence becomes real and plausible, and at that point we have no explanation for "something" being "created" from "nothing".

[Zygimantas]

So you make no guesses onto what it could be? That is great. Don't believe anything until you can be sure of it yourself. Now all you have to do is not give up on the question so fast. It's like you don't trust anything unless science tells you too.

 

Seeing that I operate in the rest of my life based on logical conclusions that are verified with evidence, I see no reason why I should jump to conclusions about anything else.

 

If my roof started leaking, I wouldn't automatically just try to make a random guess as to the reason why and then assume I was correct. I could, for example, assume that an intelligent being is trying to sabotage me and has placed a swimming pool on my roof. I could start living like this and not go seek evidence that tells me what is actually going on.

 

Or, I could do what a rational person would do, and seek the answer for why my roof is leaking. Most people don't operate by making irrational conclusions about causation in their daily lives. I fail to see why it makes any more sense to jump to an irrational conclusion about the origins of the universe without having some type of substantial evidence for which to make a conclusion from.

Exactly. Seek the answer. Don't make guesses. Simple things, like you say " I fail to see..." Ask yourself who is the "I" that fails to see. What is I? You will find an answer, then question that answer. Eventually you get to a point where basic logic or science can't help find you the answer, then you have to really try and look by yourself. Don't give up on the question just because others say they have found the answer. Look for yourself.

[Ginger_Warrior]

My sacred system? My outlook on life isn't totally grounded in science, I also have faith like you, it just isn't religious faith.

 

It annoys me when religious people and antitheists make this a battle of science vs religion; there's room for both the scientific method and faith. For instance, religious faith when altruistic has been scientifically proven to lower the incidence of some mental illnesses. The idea that there is a 'higher being' to see us through life provides hope to the hopeless. A case of science proving the positive effects of faith, but not necessarily the existence of god. Another example might be those who travel to the poorest nations on Earth to reduce cholera by installing healthy water supplies. The science provides the technical knowledge for why dirty water leads to cholera; faith provides the motivation to put it into place.

 

Don't turn this into a false dichotamy of science vs everything else.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

You have been misinformed of what our current understanding of the "universe". Our universe is a space that does have certain laws, rules, patterns, etc. However, we operate in a very unique dimension. The big bang theory does not say that our universe came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We believe that our universe came from SOMETHING. The thing that existed before the big bang is referred to as "the singularity". We aren't yet sure what this thing is, or where it existed, but we are relatively certain that the singularity existed in some other form of space with more dimensions.

 

See, that's relatively unimportant because the same logic still applies to whatever existed before our current definition of the universe.

 

Also, we have observed plenty of things that violate the "common laws" of our universe, such as the behavior of photons. We used to think that "existence" means that an object is at a certain place, at a certain time, moves around predictably, etc. However, photons do not really exist in a point in space until you actually try to observe them. Until a photon is observed, it exists not as a particle but as a wave of probability. We think that the origins of the universe are something similar. The existence of the singularity is not an existence like the coffee cup on my desk. The singularity which became our 3 dimensional universe is thought of as being a "probability dot" in a multi-dimensional existence where the "rules" of our individual universe are not necessarily similar.

As before, the point still stands. Even if the origin of the universe does not have the same meaning of "existence" there is still a point where our current meaning of existence becomes real and plausible, and at that point we have no explanation for "something" being "created" from "nothing".

 

Bro I just explained this but I guess I will say it again. OUR universe is a special place where this type of logic holds true, due to the relatively low value of fundamental universal constants such as Planck's constant. Our meaning of existence is only good for our universe and for objects who have a somewhat large mass.

 

For objects outside of our universe, and for objects in our universe with a very small mass (or no mass, such as a photon) our very idea of existence begins to break down. We see evidence of this in the behavior of elementary particles.

 

In a different universe, where Planck's constant has a much different value, you certainly would see very strange things, such as things coming into and out of "existence" as we would define it. However, for intelligent beings living in that universe, things popping in and out of their universe would be quite common and would become part of their idea of "existence", where objects frequently come and go. They wouldn't see a problem with "something" coming from "nothing". Perhaps in this other universe, people would ask the question "Since things often come and go randomly, why is the universe permanent?"

 

The problem of "something" coming from "nothing" is only a problem in our universe.

 

 

So you make no guesses onto what it could be? That is great. Don't believe anything until you can be sure of it yourself. Now all you have to do is not give up on the question so fast. It's like you don't trust anything unless science tells you too.

 

Seeing that I operate in the rest of my life based on logical conclusions that are verified with evidence, I see no reason why I should jump to conclusions about anything else.

 

If my roof started leaking, I wouldn't automatically just try to make a random guess as to the reason why and then assume I was correct. I could, for example, assume that an intelligent being is trying to sabotage me and has placed a swimming pool on my roof. I could start living like this and not go seek evidence that tells me what is actually going on.

 

Or, I could do what a rational person would do, and seek the answer for why my roof is leaking. Most people don't operate by making irrational conclusions about causation in their daily lives. I fail to see why it makes any more sense to jump to an irrational conclusion about the origins of the universe without having some type of substantial evidence for which to make a conclusion from.

Exactly. Seek the answer. Don't make guesses. Simple things, like you say " I fail to see..." Ask yourself who is the "I" that fails to see. What is I? You will find an answer, then question that answer. Eventually you get to a point where basic logic or science can't help find you the answer, then you have to really try and look by yourself. Don't give up on the question just because others say they have found the answer. Look for yourself.

 

This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be suggesting that I should use philosophy to answer the origins of our universe. Why? We don't use philosophy to explain where animals come from, how to cure diseeases, etc. This really doesn't make any sense. Who am I? I am a bag of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Humans are nothing special.

[sees_all1]

By saying that 1 = 0 you are violating one of the fundamental assumptions of mathematics.

DUH

You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different?

 

We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No.

 

However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption.

No, you're picking and choosing what you want to assume, and you're berating everyone else for making different assumptions. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

 

 

EDIT:

My sacred system? My outlook on life isn't totally grounded in science, I also have faith like you, it just isn't religious faith.

No directed specifically at you, but at those that value logic, math, and science above all else.

[Myweponsg00d]

By saying that 1 = 0 you are violating one of the fundamental assumptions of mathematics.

DUH

You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different?

 

We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No.

 

However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption.

No, you're picking and choosing what you want to assume, and you're berating everyone else for making different assumptions. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

 

What exactly are you talking about? I'd like a list of what assumptions I make that are no better than the assumptions a creationist would make.

[sees_all1]

What exactly are you talking about? I'd like a list of what assumptions I make that are no better than the assumptions a creationist would make.

I think you already know the answer to that.

[obfuscator]

 

Bro I just explained this but I guess I will say it again. OUR universe is a special place where this type of logic holds true, due to the relatively low value of fundamental universal constants such as Planck's constant. Our meaning of existence is only good for our universe and for objects who have a somewhat large mass.

 

For objects outside of our universe, and for objects in our universe with a very small mass (or no mass, such as a photon) our very idea of existence begins to break down. We see evidence of this in the behavior of elementary particles.

 

In a different universe, where Planck's constant has a much different value, you certainly would see very strange things, such as things coming into and out of "existence" as we would define it. However, for intelligent beings living in that universe, things popping in and out of their universe would be quite common and would become part of their idea of "existence", where objects frequently come and go. They wouldn't see a problem with "something" coming from "nothing". Perhaps in this other universe, people would ask the question "Since things often come and go randomly, why is the universe permanent?"

 

The problem of "something" coming from "nothing" is only a problem in our universe.

Yet the meaning of "universe" implies there is nothing outside of it.

[Myweponsg00d]

What exactly are you talking about? I'd like a list of what assumptions I make that are no better than the assumptions a creationist would make.

I think you already know the answer to that.

 

Honestly, I dont. What are they? The assumptions that the things I see are real? That scientific methods used to place relative dates on rocks and fossils are not trying to hoodwink me? And these assumptions are no better than someone who assumes that the origin of everything is a magical being?

 

That's crap. And I know you would only say this about the case of the creation of our universe.

 

There is no conclusive 100% proof that there is not a giant asteroid that will destroy Earth in 5 minutes. We are all currently operating under the assumption that there are measures in place to detect the path of asteroids, that these methods are accurate, that the asteroid obeys the laws of physics, etc. If I were to run around in a panic, informing people that the Earth is about to end, would you consider my decision to be respectable? Is my belief true? I can make the random assumption that we will all die, or I can make a series of assumptions that suggest that there is no apocolyptic asteroid about to hit the Earth.

 

Yet when it comes to the origins of the universe, people think that an assumption based on absolutely no evidence should be just as respected as a series of assumptions based on evidence.

 

Yet the meaning of "universe" implies there is nothing outside of it.

 

This is because we still use the same word that people used in the past. Cosmologists today do not think that our universe is the only universe that exists or has ever existed.

[Zygimantas]

 

So you make no guesses onto what it could be? That is great. Don't believe anything until you can be sure of it yourself. Now all you have to do is not give up on the question so fast. It's like you don't trust anything unless science tells you too.

 

Seeing that I operate in the rest of my life based on logical conclusions that are verified with evidence, I see no reason why I should jump to conclusions about anything else.

 

If my roof started leaking, I wouldn't automatically just try to make a random guess as to the reason why and then assume I was correct. I could, for example, assume that an intelligent being is trying to sabotage me and has placed a swimming pool on my roof. I could start living like this and not go seek evidence that tells me what is actually going on.

 

Or, I could do what a rational person would do, and seek the answer for why my roof is leaking. Most people don't operate by making irrational conclusions about causation in their daily lives. I fail to see why it makes any more sense to jump to an irrational conclusion about the origins of the universe without having some type of substantial evidence for which to make a conclusion from.

Exactly. Seek the answer. Don't make guesses. Simple things, like you say " I fail to see..." Ask yourself who is the "I" that fails to see. What is I? You will find an answer, then question that answer. Eventually you get to a point where basic logic or science can't help find you the answer, then you have to really try and look by yourself. Don't give up on the question just because others say they have found the answer. Look for yourself.

 

This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be suggesting that I should use philosophy to answer the origins of our universe. Why? We don't use philosophy to explain where animals come from, how to cure diseeases, etc. This really doesn't make any sense. Who am I? I am a bag of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Humans are nothing special.

Don't use philosophy or science. Just use yourself. You say "I am a bag of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc." Now what are these elements? Eventually you will come to fundamental particles, but when asking what are they, don't just settle for "I don't know". Really look for an answer.

[sees_all1]

Honestly, I dont. What are they? The assumptions that the things I see are real? That scientific methods used to place relative dates on rocks and fossils are not trying to hoodwink me? And these assumptions are no better than someone who assumes that the origin of everything is a magical being?

You assume that everything you see is real, but lets say you're actually on hallucinogens. Everything is a figment of your imagination, so is everything you perceive real?

Or lets say that the entire universe and everything in it was created yesterday, including fossils and memories. You have no proof otherwise, yet you'd think this is a ridiculous statement because of the fossils and memories that are there, but were created with everything else.

 

You assume much about the world and are condescending to people that assume different things, this is ridiculous.

[Myweponsg00d]

Honestly, I dont. What are they? The assumptions that the things I see are real? That scientific methods used to place relative dates on rocks and fossils are not trying to hoodwink me? And these assumptions are no better than someone who assumes that the origin of everything is a magical being?

You assume that everything you see is real, but lets say you're actually on hallucinogens. Everything is a figment of your imagination, so is everything you perceive real?

Or lets say that the entire universe and everything in it was created yesterday, including fossils and memories. You have no proof otherwise, yet you'd think this is a ridiculous statement because of the fossils and memories that are there, but were created with everything else.

 

You assume much about the world and are condescending to people that assume different things, this is ridiculous.

 

Do you think that it would be perfectly logical to go start telling people that the asteroid is coming then? After all, if you don't think the asteroid will hit in 5 minutes, you are just making assumptions. Do you think I should point a gun at your head and pull the trigger? If you don't want me to do this...you are making the assumption that a bullet will come out of the gun and go into your brain and kill you. What if, instead of being killed, pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger might result in ending world hunger? How do you know that you would be killed and not that the world would be saved? Both predictions require assumptions.

 

We can try this if you want. I mean if all assumptions are valid then why would you ever think you are right in assuming that firing a gun at your head would kill you? If you think that firing a gun at your head would result in death, then you are totally condescending toward anyone who thinks that shooting someone in the head will result in a shower of magical flying puppies falling from the sky.

 

Don't use philosophy or science. Just use yourself. You say "I am a bag of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc." Now what are these elements? Eventually you will come to fundamental particles, but when asking what are they, don't just settle for "I don't know". Really look for an answer.

 

This doesn't make any sense. Do I use "myself" to answer other questions about the world? Should we "use ourselves" to find the cure for cancer, since science hasn't yet provided us with the answer? Until we have evidence that gives us answers, people don't just make up magical stories. Except for creation.

 

Doctors don't have a cure for AIDS, and we don't just say "Well, maybe if you close your eyes, clap your hands, and spin around three times, a leprechaun will appear and cure your AIDS" When asked for a cure for AIDS, we must say "We don't know yet". The same is true for the origins of time and space. We aren't sure yet, so we simply dont know, and we shouldnt pretend to know.

[Zygimantas]

If God created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now?...If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If,on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe then a potter could...If out of love for living things and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune?..Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without begginning and end, as is based on principles, life and the rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures undeer the compulsion of its own nature.

 

Beautiful words :)

 

 

 

Don't use philosophy or science. Just use yourself. You say "I am a bag of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc." Now what are these elements? Eventually you will come to fundamental particles, but when asking what are they, don't just settle for "I don't know". Really look for an answer.

 

This doesn't make any sense. Do I use "myself" to answer other questions about the world? Should we "use ourselves" to find the cure for cancer, since science hasn't yet provided us with the answer? Until we have evidence that gives us answers, people don't just make up magical stories. Except for creation.

 

Doctors don't have a cure for AIDS, and we don't just say "Well, maybe if you close your eyes, clap your hands, and spin around three times, a leprechaun will appear and cure your AIDS" When asked for a cure for AIDS, we must say "We don't know yet". The same is true for the origins of time and space. We aren't sure yet, so we simply dont know, and we shouldnt pretend to know.

Science has its place in life. But it is never going to show you who you really are.

[Myweponsg00d]

Science has its place in life. But it is never going to tell you who you really are.

 

And to tell me who I am as a person, I have brilliant philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. All of which have nothing to do with a belief that I have been poofed into existence by a magician or that I have some kind of spirit dwelling with in me that is going to go somewhere when I die.

 

The questions you are asking are questions of philosophy and are not what most religions are about. Whether or not there is a god has nothing to do with whether or not I subscribe to any sort of morality or philosophy. When I want to know what happened, I turn to science. When I want to know things about myself, I turn to philosophy. Religion...what does it answer? What does it have to do with philosophy?

[Zygimantas]

Science has its place in life. But it is never going to tell you who you really are.

 

And to tell me who I am as a person, I have brilliant philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. All of which have nothing to do with a belief that I have been poofed into existence by a magician or that I have some kind of spirit dwelling with in me that is going to go somewhere when I die.

 

The questions you are asking are questions of philosophy and are not what most religions are about. Whether or not there is a god has nothing to do with whether or not I subscribe to any sort of morality or philosophy. When I want to know what happened, I turn to science. When I want to know things about myself, I turn to philosophy. Religion...what does it answer? What does it have to do with philosophy?

Religions usually put philosophies into practice. Again, I am not in belief that there is a higher being out there.

[sees_all1]

Do you think that it would be perfectly logical to go start telling people that the asteroid is coming then? After all, if you don't think the asteroid will hit in 5 minutes, you are just making assumptions.

I'm still here, so I guess that asteroid never hit. I don't worry about a life ending asteroid hitting in the next 5 minutes because its out of my control, and I don't have to assume or even think about it.

 

We can try this if you want. I mean if all assumptions are valid then why would you ever think you are right in assuming that firing a gun at your head would kill you? If you think that firing a gun at your head would result in death, then you are totally condescending toward anyone who thinks that shooting someone in the head will result in a shower of magical flying puppies falling from the sky.

No, because I know that people have been shot in the head and I know that after people were shot in the head a shower of magical flying puppies didn't appear, which is evidence contrary to the assumption.

[Myweponsg00d]

Do you think that it would be perfectly logical to go start telling people that the asteroid is coming then? After all, if you don't think the asteroid will hit in 5 minutes, you are just making assumptions.

I'm still here, so I guess that asteroid never hit. I don't worry about a life ending asteroid hitting in the next 5 minutes because its out of my control, and I don't have to assume or even think about it.

 

What happened before the universe existed and what happens after you die are also out of control. Why assume you know anything about it?

We can try this if you want. I mean if all assumptions are valid then why would you ever think you are right in assuming that firing a gun at your head would kill you? If you think that firing a gun at your head would result in death, then you are totally condescending toward anyone who thinks that shooting someone in the head will result in a shower of magical flying puppies falling from the sky.

No, because I know that people have been shot in the head and I know that after people were shot in the head a shower of magical flying puppies didn't appear, which is evidence contrary to the assumption.

 

Similarly, we see that nothing around us has ever...ever...EVER had supernatural origins. Nothing that has ever been studied has yielded the result "god put it there" or "ghosts put it there".

 

Also, you are assuming that what would happen if I shot YOU in the head would be the same thing that happened when other people got shot in the head. By your previous logic, you would have no more reason to operate under this assumption than you do to assume that something different would happen to you. They both require assumptions and therefore are both equiprobable.

[sees_all1]

They both require assumptions and therefore are both equiprobable.

Why are you trying to fallaciously argue over petty stuff that is irrelevant to the point I made, and the topic at hand? Two events occurring are not equiprobable even if assumptions are made for both. Lets assume I buy a powerball ticket, and lets assume I roll fair six-sided die. The probability that I roll a six is MUCH greater than the probability that I win the powerball (on the order of fifty million times more likely). Both events required assumptions, and both are not equiprobable.

 

Regardless of the assumptions that must be made for certain viewpoints, the fact remains that for math or science to say anything meaningful about anything, certain beliefs must be established, which cannot be proved. This is the exact same for religion. By simultaneously saying that religion is stupid because it can't prove the fact that God exists while math, science, and logic are somehow more intelligent because the entire subject is proven is short-sighted and ridiculous.

[Iamdan]

Not only that, but science in general isn't 'proven'. All we know is what has happened over the last few years in this tiny part of the universe.

 

That's true but imagine where we would be now. We would still be drilling holes in people's heads to drive evil spirits away, etc.

 

Even if modern medicine didn't use skull drilling, (it does) medicine advances are causing overpopulation which is creating bigger problems for humanity than holes in their skulls.

 

Similarly, we see that nothing around us has ever...ever...EVER had supernatural origins. Nothing that has ever been studied has yielded the result "god put it there" or "ghosts put it there".

 

Also, you are assuming that what would happen if I shot YOU in the head would be the same thing that happened when other people got shot in the head. By your previous logic, you would have no more reason to operate under this assumption than you do to assume that something different would happen to you. They both require assumptions and therefore are both equiprobable.

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

This might seem condescending and it's not my intention, but I think you're intelligent enough to wrap your head around what he's saying. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but it's accepted in the scientific community. This is the kind of thing that operators of the hadron collider, physics professors, and my astrogeek uncle regularly get together to talk about.

 

Science, numbers and theories don't exist outside of our minds. We created it. If man had no existed to give labels and values to things, and point out consistencies, science wouldn't exist, yet the universe would continue as per usual.

 

Think of gravity. If you hold up an object and let go, and it drops to the ground, that is an event. It's a physical thing that exists. Gravity as an idea, as a label, the notion that mass bends space time, does not.

 

You can drop a second third forth and millionth ball and it will also probably fall at the same acceleration taking into account air friction. However we have only been looking for consistencies for a small amount of time, in a small part of the universe.

 

It's a far from perfect system that works for us in this day and age. It has such a huge part of our culture that we accept it as fact. Importance is relative, and science not existing outside of our minds doesn't mean that it's not important to us.

 

 

Back in our earlier days, the same thing applied to religion. A god didn't carry the sun across the sky during the day, but that didn't make it any less important.

 

This is why you can never use science to disprove religion. You can't use science to disprove philosophy. They are different systems.

 

Science does a lot of things for us, but the only thing it has actually proven, is that we know very little about the universe.

 

You say we have no reason to believe in a deity. Lots of people say they do. Importance is relative, and if a deity doesn't exist outside of our minds, that doesn't make it any less important either.

[Myweponsg00d]

Not only that, but science in general isn't 'proven'. All we know is what has happened over the last few years in this tiny part of the universe.

 

That's true but imagine where we would be now. We would still be drilling holes in people's heads to drive evil spirits away, etc.

 

Even if modern medicine didn't use skull drilling, (it does) medicine advances are causing overpopulation which is creating bigger problems for humanity than holes in their skulls.

 

Similarly, we see that nothing around us has ever...ever...EVER had supernatural origins. Nothing that has ever been studied has yielded the result "god put it there" or "ghosts put it there".

 

Also, you are assuming that what would happen if I shot YOU in the head would be the same thing that happened when other people got shot in the head. By your previous logic, you would have no more reason to operate under this assumption than you do to assume that something different would happen to you. They both require assumptions and therefore are both equiprobable.

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

This might seem condescending and it's not my intention, but I think you're intelligent enough to wrap your head around what he's saying. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but it's accepted in the scientific community. This is the kind of thing that operators of the hadron collider, physics professors, and my astrogeek uncle regularly get together to talk about.

 

Science, numbers and theories don't exist outside of our minds. We created it. If man had no existed to give labels and values to things, and point out consistencies, science wouldn't exist, yet the universe would continue as per usual.

 

Think of gravity. If you hold up an object and let go, and it drops to the ground, that is an event. It's a physical thing that exists. Gravity as an idea, as a label, the notion that mass bends space time, does not.

 

You can drop a second third forth and millionth ball and it will also probably fall at the same acceleration taking into account air friction. However we have only been looking for consistencies for a small amount of time, in a small part of the universe.

 

It's a far from perfect system that works for us in this day and age. It has such a huge part of our culture that we accept it as fact. Importance is relative, and science not existing outside of our minds doesn't mean that it's not important to us.

 

 

Back in our earlier days, the same thing applied to religion. A god didn't carry the sun across the sky during the day, but that didn't make it any less important.

 

This is why you can never use science to disprove religion. You can't use science to disprove philosophy. They are different systems.

 

Science does a lot of things for us, but the only thing it has actually proven, is that we know very little about the universe.

 

You say we have no reason to believe in a deity. Lots of people say they do. Importance is relative, and if a deity doesn't exist outside of our minds, that doesn't make it any less important either.

 

Then why the hell don't we have religious explanations for freaking everything? Why don't we say that the elementary particles holding things together are little green men?

 

CAUSE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

 

There are lots of things that are still unknown to science. However, the ONLY ONE that people think it is okay to say "god did it" is the creation. WHY? Why does this physical phenomenon get special treatment from religion? Simply because billions of people in history have held the same superstition that has absolutely NO evidence going for it?

 

We currently dont have a cure for AIDS. Imagine what it would be like if doctors said "Well, we dont know what the cure is, so for now lets invent some story that supposedly might cure it. The AIDS virus is composed of millions of little demons and to get rid of it you have to say prayers." Its ludicrous!

 

Yet when it comes to origins, religion is supposedly fine.

 

"This is why you can never use science to disprove religion." Yet again...NOTHING CAN BE DISPROVEN. However, so what?? This doesn't mean that everything makes sense to believe in. If I say that there is an invisible undetectable teapot circling my head, you cannot disprove me. But does that mean that it makes sense to live your life BELIEVING my story?

 

They both require assumptions and therefore are both equiprobable.

Why are you trying to fallaciously argue over petty stuff that is irrelevant to the point I made, and the topic at hand? Two events occurring are not equiprobable even if assumptions are made for both. Lets assume I buy a powerball ticket, and lets assume I roll fair six-sided die. The probability that I roll a six is MUCH greater than the probability that I win the powerball (on the order of fifty million times more likely). Both events required assumptions, and both are not equiprobable.

 

Regardless of the assumptions that must be made for certain viewpoints, the fact remains that for math or science to say anything meaningful about anything, certain beliefs must be established, which cannot be proved. This is the exact same for religion. By simultaneously saying that religion is stupid because it can't prove the fact that God exists while math, science, and logic are somehow more intelligent because the entire subject is proven is short-sighted and ridiculous.

 

You seem to have missed the point that I made so I will restate it.

 

You think that it is short-sighted and ridiculous of me to discredit religion, since I am a man of science, and both science and religion are based on assumptions.

 

However, not all assumptions are to be created equal.

 

The point of the gun-shooting analogy is this: you would not want me to shoot you in the head with a gun. Why? Because you have seen what has happened in other situations where people get shot in the head with a gun. However, if you don't want me to shoot you, YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION that what has happened in your past observations will happen again when I shoot you in the head. It is NOT a fact that you will get shot in the head and die. The only fact is that other people have died when they got shot in the head. It is a logical ASSUMPTION, an inference, that what happens to other people will also happen to you.

 

My point is that if you think that all assumptions are equally respectable, then it would be equally respectable for you to think that million-dollar-bills will rain from the sky when I shoot you in the head with a gun. Both predictions, "death" and "money rain", require you to make assumptions. Since both scenarios require assumptions, then by your logic, it would be equally respectable to believe in either scenario.

[Iamdan]

Then why the hell don't we have religious explanations for freaking everything? Why don't we say that the elementary particles holding things together are little green men?

 

CAUSE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

No.

 

Because when the question was first raised, it was answered with religion and not science. I just explained how science is a massive part of our culture today, while religion used to be. The 'where did we come from' question came from a long time ago, and it was answered with religion.

 

Science provides an alternative. I prefer the scientific one but who are you or I to say which is better? It's a different context.

There are lots of things that are still unknown to science. However, the ONLY ONE that people think it is okay to say "god did it" is the creation. WHY? Why does this physical phenomenon get special treatment from religion? Simply because billions of people in history have held the same superstition that has absolutely NO evidence going for it?

 

We currently dont have a cure for AIDS. Imagine what it would be like if doctors said "Well, we dont know what the cure is, so for now lets invent some story that supposedly might cure it. The AIDS virus is composed of millions of little demons and to get rid of it you have to say prayers." Its ludicrous!

 

Yet when it comes to origins, religion is supposedly fine.

See above.

"This is why you can never use science to disprove religion." Yet again...NOTHING CAN BE DISPROVEN. However, so what?? This doesn't mean that everything makes sense to believe in. If I say that there is an invisible undetectable teapot circling my head, you cannot disprove me. But does that mean that it makes sense to live your life BELIEVING my story?

IT doesn't make sense because there is no philosophy behind an invisible teapot circling your head.

 

Scientific based ideas can be disproven with science. Science is a different system to religion and philosophy which is why it cannot disprove it using science.

 

Think about it: the only argument against a philosophy is a different philosophy.

[Myweponsg00d]

Then why the hell don't we have religious explanations for freaking everything? Why don't we say that the elementary particles holding things together are little green men?

 

CAUSE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

No.

 

Because when the question was first raised, it was answered with religion and not science. I just explained how science is a massive part of our culture today, while religion used to be. The 'where did we come from' question came from a long time ago, and it was answered with religion.

 

Science provides an alternative. I prefer the scientific one but who are you or I to say which is better? It's a different context.

There are lots of things that are still unknown to science. However, the ONLY ONE that people think it is okay to say "god did it" is the creation. WHY? Why does this physical phenomenon get special treatment from religion? Simply because billions of people in history have held the same superstition that has absolutely NO evidence going for it?

 

We currently dont have a cure for AIDS. Imagine what it would be like if doctors said "Well, we dont know what the cure is, so for now lets invent some story that supposedly might cure it. The AIDS virus is composed of millions of little demons and to get rid of it you have to say prayers." Its ludicrous!

 

Yet when it comes to origins, religion is supposedly fine.

See above.

"This is why you can never use science to disprove religion." Yet again...NOTHING CAN BE DISPROVEN. However, so what?? This doesn't mean that everything makes sense to believe in. If I say that there is an invisible undetectable teapot circling my head, you cannot disprove me. But does that mean that it makes sense to live your life BELIEVING my story?

IT doesn't make sense because there is no philosophy behind an invisible teapot circling your head.

 

Scientific based ideas can be disproven with science. Science is a different system to religion and philosophy which is why it cannot disprove it using science.

 

Think about it: the only argument against a philosophy is a different philosophy.

 

I agree, science cannot do anything with philosophical questions, because the field of philosophy is not physical or tangible.

 

That's science's field. To answer questions we have about what happened, what happens, and what causes things to happen. Religion should not try to answer these questions. The origin of the universe most certainly is a scientific concept, just like the origin of something like Earth's magnetic field. I don't understand why religion should be able to answer some questions about the natural world but not all of them?

 

After all, people once thought that things like the weather were directly caused by the wishes of gods. If someone insisted that you stop watching the channel 5 news for weather and instead pray to god for a vision...does that person have a valid point?

[sees_all1]

My point is that if you think that all assumptions are equally respectable, then it would be equally respectable for you to think that million-dollar-bills will rain from the sky when I shoot you in the head with a gun. Both predictions, "death" and "money rain", require you to make assumptions. Since both scenarios require assumptions, then by your logic, it would be equally respectable to believe in either scenario.

I never claimed that "all assumptions are equally respectable," because some assumptions can be proved to be incorrect. The assumptions that can't be proved or disproved are equally respectable, however.

Back to math, one does not equal zero is a reasonable assumption to hold. In religion, God exists is a reasonable assumption to hold. Saying that math is more correct than religion because it is based on proofs is ridiculous, because both have foundations on things that cannot be proved or disproved.