| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
adrich
Joined: 13 May 2004
Post Count: 130
14500 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:52 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Ganon Dun wrote: |
| So in some ways the existance of God could be called a theory, and be just as solid as any theory created by a scientist, through whatever evidence they have. Just because something is intangible, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. |
In some ways, yes, but not in a scientific way. A scientific theory is not a fact, but it is something that fits all of the evidence and has accurately predicted the outcome of every experiment used to test it. The existence of "God" cannot be tested and so it can never be a scientific theory.
| Ganon Dun wrote: |
| Have you ever asked someone to prove that God doesn't exist? Its quite hard to do. |
It is also difficult to prove that God does exist. What's your point?
| Ganon Dun wrote: |
| Some might argue that science is often based on conjecture also, especially where various theories are concerned. |
Science is based on the conjecture that we can trust our own senses and perception. This conjecture, however, is one that most people seem fully willing to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Agahnim
Endurvakning
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Post Count: 3057
Location: Mauthe
932410 Potch
200 Soldiers
36 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In some ways, yes, but not in a scientific way.
|
Therefor the arguement still remains.
| Quote: |
It is also difficult to prove that God does exist. What's your point?
|
I was already aknolwedging the fact that it is difficult to prove that God exists when I made this statement. However, my very point is that its difficult to prove that he doesn't.
| Quote: |
Science is based on the conjecture that we can trust our own senses and perception.
|
I was taking Conjecture to mean a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork when I said that some could argue that science is often based on conjecture. Since theories are, basically guesswork, be it based around some form of evidence or not.
Also, the supposition that we can trust our own senses and perception isn't one a philosopher should make; the job of a philosopher is to question everything, even our own senses.
GD
_________________
"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adrich
Joined: 13 May 2004
Post Count: 130
14500 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Therefor the arguement still remains. |
Your original argument was:
| Quote: |
| So in some ways the existance of God could be called a theory, and be just as solid as any theory created by a scientist, through whatever evidence they have. Just because something is intangible, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. |
Thus, yes, it could be called a theory, but it will not be "as solid as any theory created by a scientist" because the common usage of the word theory differs greatly from the scientific usage.
| Quote: |
I was taking Conjecture to mean a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork when I said that some could argue that science is often based on conjecture. Since theories are, basically guesswork, be it based around some form of evidence or not.
Also, the supposition that we can trust our own senses and perception isn't one a philosopher should make; the job of a philosopher is to question everything, even our own senses. |
If you question your own senses you question them based on your experiences that are based on your own perceptions through your senses. Thus, if you find the senses inadequate you must also find your own conclusion about them (derived from them) inadequate which means that you are ultimately contradicting yourself.
Moreover, your conjecture about science being based on conjecture and being mostly guesswork would itself have to be guesswork based on conjecture. Not a very convincing argument, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Queen
Ghosts of Gor
Joined: 20 May 2004
Post Count: 600
Location: Sun's Crest
2000 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Last week in my Religious Studies class, my classmates and I were asked the question,
"Are Religion and Science both seeking truth?"
This was asked us after we were shown excerpts from the movie Contact. This is what I wrote in response.
Personally, I think that both Science and Religion are seeking truth. Sciences uses facts and formulas, whereas, Religion relies soley on faith. Because of this the are mostly at eachother's throats on "Who's got the right answer."
I believe that there is more than one answer. Simply put, one answer cannot work for everyone. This is a common truth passed over by both Science and Religion. Even simple logic would indicate that one answer cannot be right for everyone in the world. In this situation what may be right for you, may not be right for me does apply.
This is slightly different from the paper I turned in, but it's essentially the same argument.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drizzt
Rangers Of Mielikki
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Post Count: 1434
250081 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently on an episode of 'The Simpsons', when Homer had surgery and a crayon was removed from his brain, and he became a GREAT deal more smarter, he was able to prove that god did not exist. And then when a holy man (Flanders of Coarse) found out he tried to destroy the evidence so no once would ever find out...
Sorry I just HAD to add that he he. But I think it is true, if someone with high faith and their strong religous beliefs, that one day something like the concept of god was proven to be false or what have you, they would never accept it even if the most simple or scientific facts stated otherwise...
_________________
“Firbolgs die with honor,” Morten explained as the logs beneath Tavis began to burn. “We don’t beg for mercy. We don’t show pain. We just die.”
“Maybe we skin you alive,” Noote warned. “That hurt plenty." - The Twilight Giants, Book I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agahnim
Endurvakning
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Post Count: 3057
Location: Mauthe
932410 Potch
200 Soldiers
36 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Thus, if you find the senses inadequate you must also find your own conclusion about them (derived from them) inadequate which means that you are ultimately contradicting yourself.
|
More than anything I'm simply accepting the possibility that there may well be a lot more outside of what we can perceive. If we didn't question everything, or at least acknolwedge that there may well be things beyond our basic understanding, then we wouldn't be very good philosophers.
| Quote: |
Moreover, your conjecture about science being based on conjecture and being mostly guesswork would itself have to be guesswork based on conjecture. Not a very convincing argument, in my opinion.
|
So, my guesswork about science being based on guesswork and being mostly guesswork would have to be guesswork based on guesswork?
A lot of scientific theories are based on guesswork. That is truth, not conjecture.
| Quote: |
the common usage of the word theory differs greatly from the scientific usage.
|
"Theory" always means the same thing, regardless of what science its applied on. Its speculation, whether or not its based on facts.
GD
_________________
"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Queen
Ghosts of Gor
Joined: 20 May 2004
Post Count: 600
Location: Sun's Crest
2000 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Traz wrote: |
Apparently on an episode of 'The Simpsons', when Homer had surgery and a crayon was removed from his brain, and he became a GREAT deal more smarter, he was able to prove that god did not exist. And then when a holy man (Flanders of Coarse) found out he tried to destroy the evidence so no once would ever find out...
Sorry I just HAD to add that he he. But I think it is true, if someone with high faith and their strong religous beliefs, that one day something like the concept of god was proven to be false or what have you, they would never accept it even if the most simple or scientific facts stated otherwise... |
What was also cool about that episode was that Homer's IQ only went up to about 90 after the crayon was removed.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iscalio
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Post Count: 8370
1681589 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Queen wrote: |
| Sciences uses facts and formulas, whereas, Religion relies soley on faith. Because of this the are mostly at eachother's throats on "Who's got the right answer." |
That is absolutely wrong, and unfortunately a common misconception.
1st: At least since Gauß every scientist with reason knows that science cannot create knowledge. It can only formulate theories within a certain scope. Einstein's theory of gravity is definitely correct, as is Newton's (in its modern formulation at least). But both only apply for a certain scope and a certain human point of view. Einstein's theory has a greater scope than Newton's - one might say it is more fundamental - but it is not "the truth". It is a coherent (in this case mathematical) description of the world, a concept. It is a reflection of reality, not reality itself.
There is no theory - nor is it possible for one to exist - which may be proven to be exhaustive.
This is no anti-science position by the way - I happen to be a physicist myself -; it is rather the premise of the succesful history of occidental science.
2nd: "Religion relies solely on faith." This is not true. If something relies solely on faith, it is no religion - it is just stupid. It is truly a common misconception that "to know" and "to believe" (the latter in its religious connotation) are two totally different things. "Faith" is - in its self-conception - a knowledge which requires an act of will. It cannot override logic or plausibility.
If - for example - someone asks a christian priest how God can be entirely God and entirely human at the same time, or how evil can exist in the world if an infinitely good and almighty God exists, and the respective priest answers with "That is not something we can understand - God moves in mysterious ways. This is something we just have to believe", then he is nothing more than an awkward excuse for a priest.
Religion has to be reasonable - otherwise I could justify just about every stupid thing with the claim "you just have to believe". Even Neo-Paganism, pseudo-Christian Creationism or even -shudder- Satanism for example could claim respect this way (something they do not deserve).
Every religion has to be possible, it has to make sense. All the major religions for example (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism) are able to answer questions like the ones mentioned above, and of course without relying on faith. They do answer them differently, but each given answer is a true possibility - it works out logically (even if it's sometimes complicated and beyond "common sense" - but that aplies for quantum mechanics as well). The act of faith is - so to speak - the act to choose the one you deem the most convincing, or even the most beautiful.
Religions cannot prove their faith (which is logically impossible), but others cannot falsify their faith either. That's the point.
| Quote: |
| that one day something like the concept of god was proven to be false |
This is not possible - not the God modern Jewish, Christian or Islamic theology describes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vextor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12086
Location: Hell
11331071 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
A theory, by definition, should be based on observable phenomena. Modern english has added "abstract speculation" to the meaning of "Theory," but empirical science does not employ that definition.
Theory comes from the ancient Greek "Theoria," which basically referrs to "observation." It originally had nothing to do with abstract speculations.
The scientific method never relies upon personal abstract speculations, because they have to be repeatable. Otherwise it is not science.
Here are the steps involved in the scientfic method.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between your hypothesis and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Naturally, phenomena that can not be observed with our senses or equipment can not be scientifically analized. This is why there can not be any theory on the exietence of the Judeo-Christian God or Creationism.
Once a "god-o-meter" or something is invented, perhaps scientists can start formulating theories on divinity and whatnot. However, we are nowhere near that stage.
For a more religious argument, the Bible argues in certain passages that God can not be known. He is a Mystery. He can not be seen, and is beyond understanding of mankind. It may even be possible to argue that a tory about God is very much against the religious doctrine, as you are trying to tuit the nature of God, when He is completely intuitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timbo
The Wandering Prophets
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2964
Location: Darja
410837 Potch
300 Soldiers
835 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| More than anything I'm simply accepting the possibility that there may well be a lot more outside of what we can perceive. If we didn't question everything, or at least acknolwedge that there may well be things beyond our basic understanding, then we wouldn't be very good philosophers. |
You see mt o use this a a possible argument for the existance of God. If something was completely outside of our senses, we would have no way of knowing or perceiving anything about it. A theory of God based on this would make it impossible, for us to even talk about this God. The God you would be referring to wouldn't be a God that would have any effect on human life at all.
| Quote: |
| Also, the supposition that we can trust our own senses and perception isn't one a philosopher should make; the job of a philosopher is to question everything, even our own senses. |
With out our senses, we would not have thoughts as we currently have thoughts. We would not be able to question our senses with out senses. Not trusting your senses and questioning can't go together. We think in pictures and words, if the ability to see wasn't there adn the ability to hear wasn't there, we wouldn't have thought as we know thought.
Makes me wonder about the thoughts of Hellen Keller. Woud she think in touches?
| Quote: |
| I was told briefly about existentialism. One aspect was "by not killing yourself, you've chosen to live" we have the ability to rise above our natural survival instincts — we can starve to death, we can suffocate ourselves, we can choose to end our lives in other more drastic manner. We can over ride our body's program to live, by choosing to ignore it, and stoping/inhibiting one of it's fuctions such that death will occur. We can bleed to death if we wanted to, by stoping the body's survival instinct: blood, stops supply oxygen to organs and so on, and eventually we'll die. |
Bingo, not everything is instinct, there is choice as you just have shown.
| Quote: |
| It's rather simple isn't it. Too simple to be philosophical, but what do people do in their lifetimes? Not many people change the course of history. To think that my existence is of universal importance is preposterous. |
It is really simple, but I find the simplicity to be more philosophical than complex ideas.
| Quote: |
| why do we create god's (as there is no proof of their existence, why are humans so willing to have faith in the unproven, what is the point?) |
I would say to ease the question of "Why" that humasn ask all of the time. To tell you the truth, I don't see much difference between saying "God" as answer and "Instinct" as answer.
| Quote: |
| what is the point of human existance, individually and collectively? what is the point of the creation of societies/civilizations, and modern culture? does it not increase overall quality of life? does the quality of life have any relation to people's willingness to coninue living? |
There is no point. We just do them. I think the problem is asking "What's the point?"
Any idea, if asked "Why" to enough, will break down to an answer of "I don't know" or "It just is". Logic in asking "why things are done" ends up giving an answer with as much use as not asking the question in the first place.
_________________
"There is no normal life, there's just life. Now get on with it" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agahnim
Endurvakning
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Post Count: 3057
Location: Mauthe
932410 Potch
200 Soldiers
36 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A theory, by definition, should be based on observable phenomena. |
| Quote: |
| Theory comes from the ancient Greek "Theoria," which basically referrs to "observation." It originally had nothing to do with abstract speculations. |
Those statments aren't completely true, whilst Theory is derived from the ancient Greek "Theoria", a greater understanding of the Greek language reveals that this word refers not only to some form of observation and spectating, but also to "speculation" and/or "belief" in the context of the times. The word was used by philosophers mainly in those times, and much of the theories created then were actually abstract speculation; such as Plato's 'World of Perfect Forms' that he claimed to have witnessed, but had no proof for its existence.
The steps you provide aren't entirely accurate either, when the scientific method is used, not only is a hypothesis created, a null hypothesis is necessary also. The null hypothesis is basically the opposite of the Hypothesis. The importance of this is that once the experiment has been concluded, whether or not it adheres more to the hypothesis or null hypothesis, it doesn't give give you the result of this experiment. The experiment is done in a manner that it can be recreated, but there is no certainty that the results will be the same. What I'm getting at is that you could perform an experiment based on religious "evidence", but the results you achieved and the results achieved by another might not be the same. The experiment itself has to be repeatable, not the result so in many ways you could attempt to recreate the religious experience of a human being, if they had this experience and recorded it for themselves in some manner and in some environment.
I am a scientist and a philosopher, but I'm not religious in the slightest, I just like to take into account that all things are possible, regardless of how solid your theory is, or how many experiments you have backing your theory. One man might have made an experiment based on a religious experience that he once had, and it would be no different from Plato's world of Perfect forms; in that it would probably be unrepeatable.
People have a lot of faith in Science, when I personally believe that a lot of it could be as impugnable as much of religion; and that we just can't know any better at this stage in our existence.
GD
_________________
"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marnix
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Post Count: 18
Location: Abarro
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a small thory on the existance of God, it isnt very substansial, but I'll just say it anyway.
If before time there was nothing, then only non physical things could exist like times or thoughts. But these things would not be substansial and would blink out of existance cause if they existed then there would be a paradox. So every idea would pass in and out of existance. But what if thee was one Idea that contradixs the rule. The idea of everything, as in not everything in existance now, but as in everything that could have existed or would and will. Since this idea can't not exist, it has to exist. Thus it was a born mind within the blackness of space and then created everthing, that could even be related to the big bang but im not sure if it happened like that. So thats God basicly, everthing. Like they say in most religions which belive in one God, God is everywhere.
Its actually a bit more complex, but I figured this last year and I cant remember why I still belive God exists, but I cling on to this thought usually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
