Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 61 of 262 (695201)
04-03-2013 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:48 PM


More examples of Garbage in/garbage out.
I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.
You have not shown that the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe or why that would be relevant even if it was true.
Nor have you shown why ANY output from Any computer should be considered scientific.
Frankly, all you have done is create worthless word salad, false analogies and presented unsupported assertions.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:48 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:04 PM jar has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 62 of 262 (695202)
04-03-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:48 PM


Define computer. I assure you I do not house one inside my cranium, but I AM using one to type these messages (further: I would not be able to use this message board with JUST my brain computer thing). If I did, I would think that I would be able to calculate pi further than 4 digits using only my brain computer thing.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:48 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 63 of 262 (695204)
04-03-2013 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:37 PM


Hi thanks for the reply, i will read in full and give a detailed reply later.
I look forward to it.
Can i just ask how much of the science that you take for granted
What do you mean by this? Do you refer to those scientific theories that I currently accept as the most accurate explanatory frameworks yet available to describe various observed natural phenomenon?
and wont think outside of
Well, that's rather presumptuous of you. Not every belief that I hold can be called "scientific." Only the ones that pertain to the way nature behaves. What I believe regarding such topics as attractiveness or comfort or enjoyment, even moral considerations, are not natural phenomenon and are not the result of "thinking inside of the science I take for granted," as they are not themselves scientific beliefs.
You seem to be using the term "scientific" as a synonym for "accurate." While the scientific method does indeed define a process by which we can increase the accuracy of our beliefs regarding the observable, objective reality around us, the two words are not synonyms. One can hold a belief that is unscientific and yet wholly accurate, and scientific theories can be (and are) inaccurate to varying degrees.
can you actually do yourself
That's more a question of available time, equipment, assistance, and funding than anything else. I can, and have, performed many scientific experiments when I was in school.
and understand within your own mind
This is more general. I have a decent layman's understanding of many scientific topics, and I'm generally well-read. I'm not an expert (and no one is an expert on everything), but my understanding of various topics has been validated at times by actual experts in scientific fields.
But really - why is this relevant? All that matters is evidence and argument. If you'd like to challenge one of my beliefs or my understanding of one or another scientific topic, we can always have a debate on that topic - where we will use logic and evidence to determine whose understanding is most accurate. But since you're so new, and since you didn't mention a specific topic, it sounds to me like you're trying to set up for a more generalized accusation that I am appealing to authority in determining my beliefs with regard to science. Fortunately for me, appealing to authority takes the form of "x is true because authority y says so," while my arguments take the form of "x, y, and z have been observed, which strongly supports the accuracy of hypothesis a and strongly refutes the accuracy of hypotheses b and c. S and T performed the initial observations, which were validated by Q and R; these experiments and observations can be repeated by anyone with the appropriate equipment."
with absolute certainty?
There is no such thing as absolute certainty. I'm not absolutely certain that we do not all live in the Matrix - and neither are you.
There are only degrees of certainty. I hold various beliefs with varying degrees of confidence, according to the evidenciary support of those hypotheses as compared to competing hypotheses. Some of my beliefs are held weakly, and it will not take much evidence to change my mind. On other subjects, I'm extremely confident and it would take a very, very strong argument with strong evidence to shift my position.
If you'd like to be more specific, then I will be able to respond in kind.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:37 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 64 of 262 (695205)
04-03-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
04-03-2013 4:53 PM


Re: More examples of Garbage in/garbage out.
The human brain is regarded by the whole of modern science to be the most powerful natural computer in the known universe. What planet are you living on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 04-03-2013 4:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2013 5:06 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 67 by jar, posted 04-03-2013 5:08 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 78 by nwr, posted 04-03-2013 8:01 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 65 of 262 (695206)
04-03-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:48 PM


I don't claim the majority consensus is true. I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.
Those are mutually contradictory statement, Mike.
If the majority of opinions counts as evidence that those opinions are accurate, then the majority consensus is more likely to be true.
Your argument really is, at its core, nothing more than an appeal to popularity, with a bunch of additional misused terminology.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:48 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:16 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 262 (695207)
04-03-2013 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 5:04 PM


Re: More examples of Garbage in/garbage out.
The human brain is regarded by the whole of modern science to be the most powerful natural computer in the known universe.
And yet when "the whole of modern science" wants to do a difficult computation, what they use is one of these machines, I don't know if you've heard of them, they're called computers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:04 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 262 (695208)
04-03-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 5:04 PM


Re: More examples of Garbage in/garbage out.
Again, that is simply an unsupported assertion.
In addition it did not address the issue raised.
You have not shown that the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe or why that would be relevant even if it was true.
Nor have you shown why ANY output from Any computer should be considered scientific.
Frankly, all you have done is create worthless word salad, false analogies and presented unsupported assertions.
AbE:
Do you understand why science does not simply use a Delphi Survey instead of using real computers to do complex calculations?
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:04 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 68 of 262 (695209)
04-03-2013 5:14 PM


Ha there seems to be a pissing match going on here, and im covered. So i take it then that the simple answer is no? The human brain and its intuition cannot be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Some of you are right maybe i did come at this from the side of the believer which prejudiced the whole thing from the start.
Science could provide proof of God though, that isn't a bunk statement. And even if it does i already believe.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2013 5:20 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2013 7:31 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 04-04-2013 7:29 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 69 of 262 (695210)
04-03-2013 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rahvin
04-03-2013 5:04 PM


Would you say science is a religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2013 5:04 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2013 5:24 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 04-03-2013 5:24 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 74 by jar, posted 04-03-2013 5:48 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 70 of 262 (695211)
04-03-2013 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 5:14 PM


Given that you only seem to think of majority opinion as scientific if the opinion is one you happen to find acceptable, I'd say that even you don't really believe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:14 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 71 of 262 (695213)
04-03-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 5:16 PM


Would you say science is a religion?
Absolutely, vehemently no, I would not. The two are about as different as two ideas can possibly be.
Science is about using objective, reproducible evidence to change beliefs based on which hypotheses are validated and which are falsified.
Religion is about faith, which is specifically defined in the very dictionary as "belief not supported by evidence."
Science is absolutely in no way at all a religion, unless you're using your own personal definitions for the terms.
Scientology is a religion...but has as much to do with science as...well, Christianity. That is to say, nothing at all.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:16 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 72 of 262 (695214)
04-03-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 5:16 PM


Would you say science is a religion?
Would you stay on topic in your own thread?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:16 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 73 of 262 (695216)
04-03-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2013 4:34 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
I think petro was posting tongue in cheek, CS.
(and it's cats, not cat's)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 6:26 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 262 (695217)
04-03-2013 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 5:16 PM


Science is NOT a religion
Of course science is not a religion and could never even be considered a religion by any thinking individual.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 5:16 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 75 of 262 (695218)
04-03-2013 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:48 PM


I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.
At one time, the vast majority of people believed that the Sun moved about the Earth. They were wrong.
Just because a belief is popular does not make it true, nor does it make it scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:48 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024