4 ms·

You realize that much of what you have to say in this is based on a leap of faith. You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses and t

You realize that much of what you have to say in this is based on a leap of faith. You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses and that nothing else exists. If anything science DENIES that as a truth with the discovery of the non-visual light spectrum. Much of science denies exactly what you claim. Science is a model to explain data and experience, while predicting what can happen. There are many theories, many of which change. A thesis (or leap of faith) is examined and DISproven. They are never proven to be 100% true. Math has proofs, not science. So please understand that it is important to realize that there is ALWAYS another explanation for something. You are irrational in your defense of Science. I do not know that there is a God. I think people who claim such things are fools as you said. I have faith that there is one. It is a thesis of mine and as of right now there is no disproof. To have doubt is to be logical :-)

rbanffy 14y ago
> To have doubt is to be logical :-) And this is why the article makes no sense. Religion cannot produce a testable hypothesis. It is, therefore, useless as a tool for explaining anything - it's as useful as a magnifying glass with a painting instead of a lens. The painting may be impressive and moving, but it's not about the bug you are examining. There is always another explanation, but, unless that other explanation is as testable as what we currently assume to be closest to correctness, it should not be considered.
super_mario 14y ago
You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a mathematician by the way so I know the distinction). Scientific method is an approximation method. It converges on the "truth" but may never reach it. This is why Einstein famously said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong." I quoted truth above because there is no such thing as truth really. We only have models. And even more there is not such thing as model independent reality. When you start talking about things (e.g. light) without using a particular model of it you run into all sorts of problems rather quickly. You are also working under the assumption that things you can't see directly can't be considered evidence. This is patently not true. We can never see electron with our own eyes directly, but we can detect it by other means. What god do you believe exists? If you are referring to deistic god (the one that may perhaps have kicked off the universe, but does not interfere in it any more) then no one can in principle provide a proof it exists nor that it does not exist. At most we can say is such a hypothesis is no longer needed. It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). This is why Occam's razor cuts such hypothesis as superfluous thing, because it does not explain anything new, but poses more questions. Theism on the other hand is not simply belief in gods. Theism is belief in gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity etc. This theistic concept of god is quite distinct from a deistic god who may perhaps have kicked off the universe and set its laws, but who does not interfere in it any more. And it is this theistic god that we now know is a man made invention.
- think-large 14y ago
  Wow, very well written. I have a lot of respect for you. Scientific models are man made abstractions on a reality that we cannot prove. You obviously put a lot of faith into those man made abstractions. To say that a theistic god is a man made invention is an assumption on who created it. That would be distinctly eliminating the possibility of alien life forms. Also you misuse Occam's Razor. It can't disprove anything without empirical data. The bible is a man-made invention. The stories in it are disseminated by men. That does not disprove that there is a God who can interact with the real world in some way or other. It just means that as scientific knowledge refines their theories so must religion. Also a few points, I'm an Aerospace Engineer. I know that there are tools that expand what our senses can observe, but they still must display information in a way that we can observe. I'm curious though, would you mind clarifying this statement. >>It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). What about a hypothesis of a deistic God makes it no longer needed? If you move away from the physical sciences into those that study the human psyche, you'll see that much is left unexplained. It could be argued (albeit blindly) that any such hypothesis is no longer needed. Natural sciences and behavioral sciences have no business explaining away each other. Religion is a behavioral science. You may deem behavioral science as superfluous, but it can't be cut away. At least not yet.
  - super_mario 14y ago
    Occam's razor was never meant to prove anything. It is a principle of economy of assumptions or hypothesis. In essence it says don't assume more than you have to explain certain phenomena. This is what I mean. We now have a good idea how universe itself can come from nothing, we don't need the god hypothesis to explain that one last ultimate question (why is there something rather than nothing. There is something because something is more stable than nothing). Our ancestors certainly didn't have that knowledge and for them god seemed necessary to "explain" this. Even though such god did not really explain anything, it just shifted the question further to where did god come from. Did he spontaneously come from nothing? Did he always exist? And why can't we just forgo such hypothesis (this is where Occam's economy principle comes in) and just assume universe itself either always existed or come into being from nothing (which is what current physical theory suggests). Why posit an intelligent being capable of creating universes, which raises more questions about where did this intelligence itself come from, rather than assume the same thing about the dumb matter (i.e. universe) itself. I hope this clarifies what I meant above. This whole argument is shortened into "deistic god can neither be proved nor disproved, but we no longer need him to kick off the universe for us. We now know how that too can happen without god". However, I have nothing against deistic god. People who want to believe in deistic god will not receive any objection from me. I'm primarily gnostic (I know there is no theistic god) anti-theist (I don't think religion is a force for good in the world). Religion is not about deistic god. Religion is about people who not only know there is a god, with certainty, but they know his mind, what he wants us to do. It is this argument from certainty (which all arguments from faith are), that can easily be disproved. Note that I have not actually offered proof in my posts, the time and space and the forum itself are not the right places to do this. But I can recommend a lot of literature on this subject that go into great depth if you care to look at the evidence we do have.
lutusp 14y ago
> You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses and that nothing else exists. Not quite. The most basic description of science is that it deals exclusively with testable ideas, ideas that can be compared to reality. And if reality disagrees, the idea is abandoned. So it's not that "nothing else exists" but that untestable, unfalsifiable ideas aren't a matter of interest to a scientist. > It is a thesis of mine and as of right now there is no disproof. [emphasis added] There's another important distinction between science and non-science -- in science, an idea without supporting evidence is assumed to be false (the null hypothesis). To a non-scientist, ideas that haven't been disproven are assumed to be true (as in your example above). That's a big difference -- it's why nonscientists accept so many unsupported ideas. Because of the null hypothesis, scientists are described as skeptical of ideas unaccompanied by evidence. This posture is sometimes looked on as a handicap -- until a jury is empaneled, at which point a variant form of the null hypothesis is explained to the jurors (innocent until proven guilty). It all depends on how important the outcome is. If it's just a philosophical debate with no practical consequences, then believing anything does no harm. But when our lives or our health depend on the result, the null hypothesis has it all over the undisciplined approach.
- think-large 14y ago
  As per the senses, yes you are correct testable. But in order to verify those tests we have to be able to sense in some way shape or form the results. The natural sciences are limited in that nature. I can't feel, I'm using the abstract idea of feel not that of the sensation we get through our skin, the results of an experiment. The point that I'm making here is that religion needs to stay where it belongs. In the realm of behavioral side of the argument. I'd argue that anyone who said, "God created the universe" means that they are uninterested in the science behind it and that it is immaterial to their belief in God. I'd argue that most religious don't associate God with controlling the atoms of the universe and setting it to begin. Sure they get comfortable with this explanation if it is presented long enough (2k years or so), but it doesn't matter to the abstract idea of God. The "proof" of God comes not from what we can prove through observation (using our 5 senses + any tools we can create), but rather through a sense, a feel, a concept that there is a sixth sense in our minds. There is something we cannot touch. In that case there should never be a proof for or against God. It's an abstract idea coming from feelings that we have of a spiritual core. Also, philosophical debates have a great deal of practical consequences. If someone takes a philosophy to heart they can do a lot of damage. I know that many people argue that religion has caused harm, but it isn't the religion, but the institution that harms people. I think people can use anything to justify their behavior, God or no. It is when people objectify others and treat them as such that we have a problem. So I'd suggest that we could look at the different disconnected cultures in the world that have "religion" as a set of evidence that there is something in us that wants to believe in an external being. My theory is that there is a God, and anyone is free to disagree. That is at the core of religion. The only truth I hold is that the later part of that statement is the most important. Also, I realize that a hypothesis like that above is subjective and not capable of being dis-proven, thus most scientists worth their salt should and would never waste the energy to create an instrument to test it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible or a valid explanation. I freaking love this topic :-) P.S. Thanks for the post, I love reminders of things long since forgotten, I've been working in the industry way to long and most religious people aren't interested in this kind of discussion.

rbanffy 14y ago

> To have doubt is to be logical :-) And this is why the article makes no sense. Religion cannot produce a testable hypothesis. It is, therefore, useless as a tool for explaining anything - it's as useful as a magnifying glass with a painting instead of a lens. The painting may be impressive and moving, but it's not about the bug you are examining. There is always another explanation, but, unless that other explanation is as testable as what we currently assume to be closest to correctness, it should not be considered.

super_mario 14y ago

You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a mathematician by the way so I know the distinction). Scientific method is an approximation method. It converges on the "truth" but may never reach it. This is why Einstein famously said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong." I quoted truth above because there is no such thing as truth really. We only have models. And even more there is not such thing as model independent reality. When you start talking about things (e.g. light) without using a particular model of it you run into all sorts of problems rather quickly. You are also working under the assumption that things you can't see directly can't be considered evidence. This is patently not true. We can never see electron with our own eyes directly, but we can detect it by other means. What god do you believe exists? If you are referring to deistic god (the one that may perhaps have kicked off the universe, but does not interfere in it any more) then no one can in principle provide a proof it exists nor that it does not exist. At most we can say is such a hypothesis is no longer needed. It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). This is why Occam's razor cuts such hypothesis as superfluous thing, because it does not explain anything new, but poses more questions. Theism on the other hand is not simply belief in gods. Theism is belief in gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity etc. This theistic concept of god is quite distinct from a deistic god who may perhaps have kicked off the universe and set its laws, but who does not interfere in it any more. And it is this theistic god that we now know is a man made invention.

think-large 14y ago
Wow, very well written. I have a lot of respect for you. Scientific models are man made abstractions on a reality that we cannot prove. You obviously put a lot of faith into those man made abstractions. To say that a theistic god is a man made invention is an assumption on who created it. That would be distinctly eliminating the possibility of alien life forms. Also you misuse Occam's Razor. It can't disprove anything without empirical data. The bible is a man-made invention. The stories in it are disseminated by men. That does not disprove that there is a God who can interact with the real world in some way or other. It just means that as scientific knowledge refines their theories so must religion. Also a few points, I'm an Aerospace Engineer. I know that there are tools that expand what our senses can observe, but they still must display information in a way that we can observe. I'm curious though, would you mind clarifying this statement. >>It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). What about a hypothesis of a deistic God makes it no longer needed? If you move away from the physical sciences into those that study the human psyche, you'll see that much is left unexplained. It could be argued (albeit blindly) that any such hypothesis is no longer needed. Natural sciences and behavioral sciences have no business explaining away each other. Religion is a behavioral science. You may deem behavioral science as superfluous, but it can't be cut away. At least not yet.
- super_mario 14y ago
  Occam's razor was never meant to prove anything. It is a principle of economy of assumptions or hypothesis. In essence it says don't assume more than you have to explain certain phenomena. This is what I mean. We now have a good idea how universe itself can come from nothing, we don't need the god hypothesis to explain that one last ultimate question (why is there something rather than nothing. There is something because something is more stable than nothing). Our ancestors certainly didn't have that knowledge and for them god seemed necessary to "explain" this. Even though such god did not really explain anything, it just shifted the question further to where did god come from. Did he spontaneously come from nothing? Did he always exist? And why can't we just forgo such hypothesis (this is where Occam's economy principle comes in) and just assume universe itself either always existed or come into being from nothing (which is what current physical theory suggests). Why posit an intelligent being capable of creating universes, which raises more questions about where did this intelligence itself come from, rather than assume the same thing about the dumb matter (i.e. universe) itself. I hope this clarifies what I meant above. This whole argument is shortened into "deistic god can neither be proved nor disproved, but we no longer need him to kick off the universe for us. We now know how that too can happen without god". However, I have nothing against deistic god. People who want to believe in deistic god will not receive any objection from me. I'm primarily gnostic (I know there is no theistic god) anti-theist (I don't think religion is a force for good in the world). Religion is not about deistic god. Religion is about people who not only know there is a god, with certainty, but they know his mind, what he wants us to do. It is this argument from certainty (which all arguments from faith are), that can easily be disproved. Note that I have not actually offered proof in my posts, the time and space and the forum itself are not the right places to do this. But I can recommend a lot of literature on this subject that go into great depth if you care to look at the evidence we do have.

lutusp 14y ago

> You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses and that nothing else exists. Not quite. The most basic description of science is that it deals exclusively with testable ideas, ideas that can be compared to reality. And if reality disagrees, the idea is abandoned. So it's not that "nothing else exists" but that untestable, unfalsifiable ideas aren't a matter of interest to a scientist. > It is a thesis of mine and as of right now there is no disproof. [emphasis added] There's another important distinction between science and non-science -- in science, an idea without supporting evidence is assumed to be false (the null hypothesis). To a non-scientist, ideas that haven't been disproven are assumed to be true (as in your example above). That's a big difference -- it's why nonscientists accept so many unsupported ideas. Because of the null hypothesis, scientists are described as skeptical of ideas unaccompanied by evidence. This posture is sometimes looked on as a handicap -- until a jury is empaneled, at which point a variant form of the null hypothesis is explained to the jurors (innocent until proven guilty). It all depends on how important the outcome is. If it's just a philosophical debate with no practical consequences, then believing anything does no harm. But when our lives or our health depend on the result, the null hypothesis has it all over the undisciplined approach.

think-large 14y ago
As per the senses, yes you are correct testable. But in order to verify those tests we have to be able to sense in some way shape or form the results. The natural sciences are limited in that nature. I can't feel, I'm using the abstract idea of feel not that of the sensation we get through our skin, the results of an experiment. The point that I'm making here is that religion needs to stay where it belongs. In the realm of behavioral side of the argument. I'd argue that anyone who said, "God created the universe" means that they are uninterested in the science behind it and that it is immaterial to their belief in God. I'd argue that most religious don't associate God with controlling the atoms of the universe and setting it to begin. Sure they get comfortable with this explanation if it is presented long enough (2k years or so), but it doesn't matter to the abstract idea of God. The "proof" of God comes not from what we can prove through observation (using our 5 senses + any tools we can create), but rather through a sense, a feel, a concept that there is a sixth sense in our minds. There is something we cannot touch. In that case there should never be a proof for or against God. It's an abstract idea coming from feelings that we have of a spiritual core. Also, philosophical debates have a great deal of practical consequences. If someone takes a philosophy to heart they can do a lot of damage. I know that many people argue that religion has caused harm, but it isn't the religion, but the institution that harms people. I think people can use anything to justify their behavior, God or no. It is when people objectify others and treat them as such that we have a problem. So I'd suggest that we could look at the different disconnected cultures in the world that have "religion" as a set of evidence that there is something in us that wants to believe in an external being. My theory is that there is a God, and anyone is free to disagree. That is at the core of religion. The only truth I hold is that the later part of that statement is the most important. Also, I realize that a hypothesis like that above is subjective and not capable of being dis-proven, thus most scientists worth their salt should and would never waste the energy to create an instrument to test it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible or a valid explanation. I freaking love this topic :-) P.S. Thanks for the post, I love reminders of things long since forgotten, I've been working in the industry way to long and most religious people aren't interested in this kind of discussion.