<p>
[QUOTE]
The fact that the "religious method" is inferior in this respect does not constitute evidence for or against God.
[/QUOTE]
i never said such a thing</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
We are debating the existence of a supernatural being, not the effectiveness of man's set of beliefs regarding that being.
[/QUOTE]
science is the only reliable way we have found for finding truth, or what appears to be the truth. would you like to propose an alternative method?</p>
<p>pesky that was an amazing post... (from the point of view of a science major who's trying to prevent this from inflating his ego)</p>
<p>Mr Muffin:</p>
<p>There are proximate causes (how) and ultimate (why) causes. Science explains the world in terms of proximate causes.</p>
<p>Ultimate causes cannot be explained by science. Non-scientific areas of knowledge (philosophy for example), make a strong attempt in this area. For example, philosophy of logic is based on deductive reasoning, as opposed to science's mainly inductive reasoning; however, it provides the rigorous framework for reasoning in general.</p>
<p>PeskytheBobCat:</p>
<p>Can't one argue that defense of one's beliefs in the face of uncertainty and self-doubt is quite courageous also? (What I am saying is that "courage" can be a subjective quality, and that it's obvious that both men and women of science and religion have shown tremendous courage.)</p>
<p>show me how the evidence for the existence of an object can be supplied through non-scientific means. deductive reasoning is logical only if the premise is an already well-supported claim.</p>
<p>oh yeah i forgot - give me a rigorous definition of "supernatural". please :P</p>
<p>I'm tired of this undercurrent in the religious world of atheists not wanting to believe in God because they lack morals</p>
<p>This is my experience as well. My atheist friends are more peaceful, open, and tolerant; my religious relatives spew constant vitriol at those not adhering to their ideology, be it religion (Islam in particular at the moment), sexual orientation, and even political orientation. I'll take the morals of atheists any day.</p>
<p>Supernatural means anything that transcends the laws of nature. (Yeah, I know it sounds silly...)</p>
<p>The existence of an physical material object cannot be supplied through non-scientific means, but the existence of concepts such as numbers, shapes, etc. can. They do not exist as an object, but are they "real?" (this is a further debate, and I don't know what the answer is).</p>
<p>Hey guys I have to go for the night. See ya.</p>
<p>the thing about mathematics is that there are no contradictions within mathematics. But there are within religious inquiry. For example, people logically deduce that Zeus must exist. But on the other hand, there are people that deduce that God must exist. Who's right?</p>
<p>yoon:
well then define nature</p>
<p>are you saying we can only prove god as a concept?
the concept of numbers and shapes do have a physical form. it's the neural connections inside our brains. in that sense, they are "real"</p>
<p>but to make things more understandable you'd have to define "real" as well</p>
<p>so much debating goes into defining things :/</p>
<p>Hahaha, this thread is a good read.</p>
<p>mr muffin, with all due respect (and purely for the sake of open-mindedness...well, and argument), scientific methods are far from impenetrable. While it seems scientific experiments and things experienced and agreed upon by "multitudes of people, through the media of the various senses," or the like, what true evidence does anyone have for his/her experience. How can what you see be any sort of "truth" if others do not see it the same way, such as those who are color-blind or have some form of mental illness?</p>
<p>In order to fully appreciate this argument over the strength of science over omnipotence, or vice-versa, and to investigate the fundamental issues at stake here, it must the realized that both sides come to the discussion with such strongly founded definitions and concepts that make it nearly impossible (and that's being optimistic!) to reconcile.</p>
<p>For example, both sides tend to take the accuracy of the bible for granted, and those preferring that of science take a hard line to the meaning and ways of accessing "knowledge," or even "truth," among various other things.</p>
<p>But anyway, I tend to babble and write really long sentences, so much so that someone has probably already posted between the time of the last post and this one, so...</p>
<p>...huh, 5 posts...I thought so...</p>
<p>night yoon
thx for the insights about the proximate and ultimate</p>
<p>ya coffee, that's similar to my own thoughts... choosing which religion to believe in almost seems unfair to the other religions :(</p>
<p>lol moo</p>
<p>polar, a lot of the same thoughts come to mind when I look at the debate, and it's why I quoted the line from Rocket Science. sometimes I question how many of the people on each side really know enough about the other side's argument to try to attack it</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
mr muffin, with all due respect (and purely for the sake of open-mindedness...well, and argument), scientific methods are far from impenetrable. While it seems scientific experiments and things experienced and agreed upon by "multitudes of people, through the media of the various senses," or the like, what true evidence does anyone have for his/her experience. How can what you see be any sort of "truth" if others do not see it the same way, such as those who are color-blind or have some form of mental illness?
[/QUOTE]
i don't see how this shows the "penetrability" of science. science says that if you have all 3 types of cones in your eyes, you will be able to see colors. it doesn't say EVERYONE sees them. same with people who are mentally ill.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In order to fully appreciate this argument over the strength of science over omnipotence, or vice-versa, and to investigate the fundamental issues at stake here, it must the realized that both sides come to the discussion with such strongly founded definitions and concepts that make it nearly impossible (and that's being optimistic!) to reconcile.</p>
<p>For example, both sides tend to take the accuracy of the bible for granted, and those preferring that of science take a hard line to the meaning and ways of accessing "knowledge," or even "truth," among various other things.
[/QUOTE]
science doesn't assume anything except that our senses can be trusted to tell us what the world is really like (and causality. but that needs to be assumed for anything to make sense). but even if we assume that it is not the case and the world is actually like the matrix, it doesn't matter because it has no effect on us whatsoever.</p>
<p>CoffeeBreak=), in mathematics, there is a set system of axioms and defined symbols from which all other postulates are deduced. In math, there is "truth" because the "truth" is given in the rules. It's just like saying, 1+1=2 because "1," "2," "=," and the operation "+" mean what they do. The equation is true because it is made true by the rules of mathematics.</p>
<p>However, when considering the different religions, one must realize that they are under different paradigms. The "Greek mythology" paradigm and the "God" paradigm are mutually exclusive universes (in terms of the whole, not individual concepts), and so different people can deduce the existence of different Gods because they are using fundamentally different rules (like the axioms of mathematics) and symbols. In the entire field of "religion," the rules are far from finite.</p>
<p>Note: I don't know how to do the "quote" thing on CC...can someone help me? : )</p>
<p>Science does not even fully grasp how sight is comprehended by the mind. There are competing theories that exist regarding the function of the cones/rods in our eyes, and the concreteness of the mechanics of mental illnesses in particular is lacking. And the weakness of science I am pointing out is, in fact, that upon which you comment in your next paragraph...the necessity of certain basic assumptions. I'm simply saying that similar assumptions (similar in terms of baseness, not actual likeness) must be made for religion for the two to be fairly argued (though the "fairness" of a two-sided debate is questionable). However, I personally am NOT an advocate of religion, do not get me wrong. I simply like to bat around philosophical ideas and debate.</p>
<p>If you care about truth, then the fallibility of senses does matter. After all, if we were in the Matrix, then this question of god v. science might very well be moot. And I guess I just like to deconstruct everything (but I swear I'm not, like, a crazy sci-fi fanatic or anything) and assume that nothing can be assumed, not our senses, not causality, not even the assumption I just made, lol...</p>
<p>btw, this argument is the most fun I've had in weeks (sad, I know...)</p>
<p>omg tangent
in Lightman's Einstein's Dreams, he provides 30 meditations that describe the world with varying concepts of time. in one of them, causality doesn't exist!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Note: I don't know how to do the "quote" thing on CC...can someone help me? : )
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE.]
message in here
[/QUOTE]
get rid of the dot though</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
And the weakness of science I am pointing out is, in fact, that upon which you comment in your next paragraph...the necessity of certain basic assumptions. I'm simply saying that similar assumptions (similar in terms of baseness, not actual likeness) must be made for religion for the two to be fairly argued (though the "fairness" of a two-sided debate is questionable). However, I personally am NOT an advocate of religion, do not get me wrong. I simply like to bat around philosophical ideas and debate.
[/QUOTE]
i've only listed one assumption that doesn't need to be applied to religion. the other one does.</p>
<p>science is about finding truth in the applicable world. who cares about an alternate universe if it's impossible to interact with it. "if it's unobservable, it doesn't exist"</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If you care about truth, then the fallibility of senses does matter. After all, if we were in the Matrix, then this question of god v. science might very well be moot. And I guess I just like to deconstruct everything (but I swear I'm not, like, a crazy sci-fi fanatic or anything) and assume that nothing can be assumed, not our senses, not causality, not even the assumption I just made, lol...
[/QUOTE]
but we cannot prove our senses to be inconsistent with the real world, because it's what we USE to observe the real world.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
btw, this argument is the most fun I've had in weeks (sad, I know...)
[/QUOTE]
yeah, me too. but i have to go to sleep soon :(. only 12 more days!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Thanks mr muffin, for the "quote" thing!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
science is about finding truth in the applicable world. who cares about an alternate universe if it's impossible to interact with it. "if it's unobservable, it doesn't exist"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess we're really looking for different answers, then...while you are looking for truth in the applicable world, I am looking for the "ultimate" truth, if it exists, and if it can be found. Actually, I personally do not believe I will be able to find such a truth, but it's fun to postulate. And this also appears to probe into a deeper issue, that of our clearly dissimilar definitions of "universe." The "universe" I refer to is that which encompasses everything, regardless of whether or not such an (I admit, poorly constructed in concept) entity actually exists.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
but we cannot prove our senses to be inconsistent with the real world, because it's what we USE to observe the real world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is true. We can neither prove nor disprove it. Ahaha, that seems to be my argument in all philosophical discussions..."we know nothing. we can prove nothing." I'm a total pessimist.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
only 12 more days!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yay! I'm so excited!!! :)</p>