1 edit
Originally posted by EladarIn other words, you figure science is our religion and we just believe anything a scientist tells us, is that it? Obviously, you know little about science. For instance, a scientists says Mars is Blue. Ok, some people might fall in line with that. Then other sceptical scientists train a newly minted telescope on Mars and find out it's mostly brownish red. Then other scientists do the same. Pretty soon there is ample evidence the guy who said Mars is blue is full of shyte and not to be believed.
I am sure that is how you take it. You are one of those true believers who can't see the obvious.
But in your mythology, that is still just belief. Seems though, the development of that method has produced all the wonders you now use to type in those words you use, now doesn't it.
But since you are besotted with Jesus, you MUST think EVERYTHING is mere belief.
To you nothing is real, since to accept something as real would deny belief and go into the world of reality proven.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWrong
In other words, you figure science is our religion and we just believe anything a scientist tells us, is that it? Obviously, you know little about science. For instance, a scientists says Mars is Blue. Ok, some people might fall in line with that. Then other sceptical scientists train a newly minted telescope on Mars and find out it's mostly brownish red. T ...[text shortened]... al, since to accept something as real would deny belief and go into the world of reality proven.
I said that everyone has a core belief that can't be proven. It must be taken on faith.
How did the universe begin? Is that a fair question?
How can anything not have a beginning?
If one assumes that the Universe had a purely natural beginning, then explain how something can arise from nothing.
You see, every assumption requires faith. No point of view is without its flaws.
It is just that some who put their heads in the sand like to pretend their beliefs are rooted in facts not faith.
Originally posted by EladarMaybe for you assumption requires faith. MY assumptions require evidence. I don't assume anything. I KNOW if I jump over a cliff I die. There is no assumtion there, that is solid knowledge.
Wrong
I said that everyone has a core belief that can't be proven. It must be taken on faith.
How did the universe begin? Is that a fair question?
How can anything not have a beginning?
If one assumes that the Universe had a purely natural beginning, then explain how something can arise from nothing.
You see, every assumption requires faith. ...[text shortened]... ome who put their heads in the sand like to pretend their beliefs are rooted in facts not faith.
Maybe you have some philosphical POV that allows you to think YOU can jump off a cliff unprotected by wings or paraglider that you will be alive to tell the tale but I can assure you your life would end falling off a 1000 foot cliff onto rocks below.
Tell me what faith I have to have to make that assumption? Faith that gravity will somehow make an exception for just me? My evidence tells me gravity on Earth is the same as it was 3 billion years ago so if I got into a time machine and went back a billion years and jumped off a cliff there, I would still die.
This is not assumption based on faith.
Originally posted by EladarAnd some of us are wise enough not to have beliefs about something we know we cannot know. I do not know how the universe started or even if it started and have never claimed otherwise.
It is just that some who put their heads in the sand like to pretend their beliefs are rooted in facts not faith.
The vast majority of my beliefs are rooted in fact.
Originally posted by sonhouseYour beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
Maybe for you assumption requires faith. MY assumptions require evidence. I don't assume anything. I KNOW if I jump over a cliff I die. There is no assumtion there, that is solid knowledge.
Maybe you have some philosphical POV that allows you to think YOU can jump off a cliff unprotected by wings or paraglider that you will be alive to tell the tale but ...[text shortened]... years and jumped off a cliff there, I would still die.
This is not assumption based on faith.
True we can't test it but does that mean it is not possible?
Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws.
10 edits
Originally posted by Eladar
Your beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
True we can't test it but does that mean it is not possible?
Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws.
Your beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
a supernatural belief is presumably not based on observation (unless you hallucinate) nor logic (unless it is MASSIVELY twisted) and, because of Occam's razor, it is therefore rational to assume a very low non-zero probability that there is a supernatural. The supernatural is logically possible, but unlikely.
True we can't test it but does that mean it is not possible?
yes, it is 'possible'. So what? Do you go from "it is possible" to "it is probable"? And then from there go to "it is true"?
It must be logically possible that a supernatural teacup orbits Mars; so does there probably exists a supernatural teacup orbits Mars?
There are an infinite number of things that are 'possible', but most of those things are highly unlikely.
Therefore;
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws.
Completely rational thinking has no "flaws" let alone "obvious flaws".
You can, without the slightest effort of thought, easily explain anything away with a god or magic or the supernatural.
But, for a real explanation, you must do a lot better than that.
Real explanations requires real thinking.
When one does not know, it is stupid to explain it away with a god. Much more intelligent and honest to just humbly admit ignorance. Or, better still, seek a rational scientific explanation i.e. based on evidence and logic.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI believe one should base what ones beliefs purely on evidence and/or flawless logic and not on what one would like to be true (hence my rejection of religion)... and that's it. It is you who believes in a religion, not me nor most of the scientists here.
As I said earlier you are a yrue believer.
Originally posted by humyI know what you believe. How is that belief not rooted in an assumption that can't be proven?
I believe one should base what ones beliefs purely on evidence and/or flawless logic and not one what one would like to be true... and that's it. It is you who believes in a religion, not me nor most of the scientists here.
6 edits
Originally posted by EladarI do not make any such assumption about the "acceptability" of a natural explanation or any other kind of explanation including a supernatural one. Regardless of the "acceptability" of an assumption, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, a supernatural assumption should be assigned a low probability because of logic/lack-of-evidence/Occam's-razor etc. The "acceptability" of an explanation is irrelevant. And I don't even regard a supernatural explanation as 'unacceptable' (why should I?); just not likely given logic/Occam's-razor etc, that's all. Its probability based on logic/evidence is what's relevant. If I observed real creditable evidence for supernatural, I would without hesitation or emotional reluctance believe there is a supernatural. What assumption do I make just there (or anywhere for that matter) that "can't be proven"?
That the only acceptable explanation is a natural explanation.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
I do not make any such assumption about the "acceptability" of a natural explanation or any other kind of explanation including a supernatural one. Regardless of the "acceptability" of an assumption, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, a supernatural assumption should be assigned a low probability because of logic/lack-of-evidence/Occam's-razor etc. The ...[text shortened]... vant. What assumption do I make just there (or anywhere for that matter) that "can't be proven"?
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
If this definition of Occam's razor is true, then you are stuck.
You put your faith in one theory over the other. It is something that you believe in that can't be proven.
I have no problem with something that can be demonstrated to be true even if it is simply an unproven theory. If it can be demonstrated to work and is repeatable then use it. It is something we can do.
But then to jump to other things which are not repeatable, then that is simply faith in a theory that can't be demonstrated to be true nor can it be tested. This means you rely on faith.
I know I've wasted my time trying to open your eyes here, but it is there to reread and who knows maybe one day you will see the light. At that time you can thank me.
Only a complete idiot would say that since you believe in gravity you must believe that God does not exist and the super natural does not exist. But then there are plenty of complete idiots around here.