25 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…well how rational do you call someone who calls superstring theory possible (something that hasn't even properly been theorized yet) …
well how rational do you call someone who calls superstring theory possible(something that hasn't even properly been theorized yet) yet the existence of god impossible? they are both theories that have not been proven wrong(or right). hints suggest that superstring theory might be proven in the past or at least after working on it. hints likewise suggest th ...[text shortened]... ntil proven real. but likewise you can't assume it is impossible also until proven impossible.
Providing it predicts what we already know to be true from scientific experiments and observations and providing there is as yet no evidence that contradicts superstring theory, then it is perfectly rational to say superstring theory is “possible” (which is not the same as saying it IS true or even the same thing as saying it is probably true)
By the way, very few scientists would claim that “superstring theory is true” since virtually everyone agrees that it is a highly speculative theory that is difficult (if not impossible) to verify even if it was true. Many scientists would say it is so speculative that it is almost certainly false! By comparing this highly speculative theory with the belief that there is a god, are you implying that the belief that there is a god is also a highly speculative theory that is as untrustworthy as superstring theory?
…yet the existence of god impossible? …
Correct. Not literally “impossible” but rather has a vanishingly small probability of being true according to the criterion that we must judge the probability of an existential claim being true to be vanishingly small unless there is sufficient evidence in support of the existential claim to judge otherwise.
…they are both theories that have not been proven wrong (or right).…
Correct.
…hints suggest that superstring theory might be proven in the past or at least after working on it. …
I think if it had been proven correct at sometime in the past then the person that proved it would almost certainly have publicised it by now and then we would all regard superstring theory as a fact right now. Since that hasn’t happened, it is reasonable to assume that it has never been proven. The problem with superstring theory is that nobody knows even how to prove it so I find the idea that somebody may have proved it in the past as highly dubious.
…hints likewise suggest that god exists. …
What kind of hints are you referring to here? Can you give a specific example of just such a “hint “ that doesn’t have some other simpler explanation?
… sure it is not scientific to assume something is real until proven real. …
Correct. The existential claim that there is a god is an example of that.
… but likewise you can't assume it is impossible also until proven impossible.…
Correct. But you can have rational reasons to assume that it has a vanishingly small probability of being true. For example, hypothetically, if somebody seriously claims that there exists a Santa , would you not regard it as rational to assume that there is a vanishingly small probability of Santa existing despite the fact that “nobody has proven there is no Santa” ?
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthe belief that there is a god is also a highly speculative theory that is as untrustworthy as superstring theory?
[b]…well how rational do you call someone who calls superstring theory possible (something that hasn't even properly been theorized yet) …
Providing it predicts what we already know to be true from scientific experiments and observations and providing there is as yet no evidence that contradicts superstring theory, then it is perfectly ration ...[text shortened]... ll probability of Santa existing despite the fact that “nobody has proven there is no Santa” ?[/b]
most definetely yes. from a scientific point of view, god is as speculative as superstring theory or maybe a better example as aether(the substance in which light was supposed to propagate) aether was proven to be wrong and discarded, however string theory or god was not. i don't mind admitting that god has a very slim chance of existing, at least from a scientific perspective. i disagree with those that say that god most definetely doesn't exist.
if we look at god from a faith point of view, things become much easier. you don't require proof and you are free to believe in anything your heart and mind desires. surely reason must be also intertwined with faith so as to not believe god requires human sacrifices or for those that have faith in superstring theory(they look for anything that might prove it) not to build an airplane that runs on superstring theory(so to speak).
faith is a break from the material and an escape into the spiritual. as long as we make the correct choices in every day life, it really doesn't matter if we believe in allah or jesus or nothing at all. it doesn't make us more of person if we believe there is no god and it doesn't make us better if we believe in jesus. we are defined by the choices we make, not the system of beliefs and morals we claim to have
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by scherzoNo Religion DOESN'T have any official way of killing anybody in fact it's the other way around Religious, try to save people, it's the non-religious who are dangerous.
I believe that what he's trying to say is that religion has an official way of killing people, not just a dirty-secret-scandal way that no one knows about. Correct, Regicidal?
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by 667joeHere is an idea don't have sex.
Religion is dangerous because it makes it easier to believe in the irrational. that is, if you can believe in one thing with no proof such as the virgin birth, it makes it easier to believe in other nonsense as well. George Bush, for example, believes you can prevent pregnancy by not handing out condoms.