|
Author
|
Topic: Belief in God is scientific.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
My brain is a stand alone version of the most complex thing in the known universe. It is one of billions that make up humanity. Humanity more or less classes the brain as a computer, and lots of these computers independently and through a myriad of experiences called life come to the conclusion that there is a God. More people - brains - computers come to the answer 'God' than those that come to the answer 'no God'. My question is why isn't the human belief in God classed as scientific? When the most powerful computer network in the known universe comes to the answer 'God'? My brain is a stand alone version of the most complex thing in the known universe. It is one of billions that make up humanity. Humanity more or less classes the brain as a computer, and lots of these computers independently and through a myriad of experiences called life come to the conclusion that Christianity is bunk. More people - brains - computers come to the answer 'Christianity is bunk' than those that come to the answer 'Christianity is the one true religion'. My question is why isn't the human disbelief in Christianity classed as scientific? When the most powerful computer network in the known universe comes to the answer 'Christianity is bunk'?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
If everyone on the planet did astrology charting then of course it would become scientific ... No, just popular.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
That's nice of you to debunk Christianity, but where did i say a single thing about Christianity? You didn't, but your reasoning is generally applicable. If your reasoning is valid, then it is scientific to reject Christianity, correct?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Billions of people not winning the lottery or finding love in response to their astrological readings would then through common sense stop them doing it. That doesn't seem to happen to people who do practice astrology.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
But in that case why don't you go start another thread as debunking Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic ... It has to do with your reasoning. According to you, it is scientific to reject minority opinions, correct? This would include, for example, Christianity, yes?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
I didn't say that, i said 'to believe in God' is scientific because more people believe than don't. And more people believe that Christianity is bunk than don't. So is that scientific?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Why are you asking me? Your OP is based on the idea that the argumentum ad populum is scientific. I am trying to establish whether it is always scientific, or just when you want it to be. If the latter, then your original criterion for when something is scientific needs some alteration, since you should have instead explained in the OP that something is scientific if a majority of people believe it and if you personally are one of them.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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. Well, science is about evidence, not about counting heads. Try asking the next ten non-scientists you meet: if a running man carrying a brick by his side drops it, what happens to the brick, what path does it take to the ground? Most or all of them will be wrong. This is not for want of evidence, we've all seen falling objects and people dropping stuff. And yet they will be mistaken.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
You couldn't be more wrong. The people who said the Earth is flat, and all the other stuff about the Earth being the centre of the universe and all that stuff where actually the scientist's of the day, the popular conceptions of those days where propagated by scientists. Only a handful of people in some Greek university new what they where talking about yet the wrong information spread round the world. In the same way today only a very very small amount of people know the required amount of physics to actually understand what is really going on, yet millions and millions claim to understand, we are no different from the witch burning idiots of old. The only conclusion you can come to with regards sciences current position is that it is wrong and that untold millions of people believe in somthing that is going to be proved wrong. I think some reasoning should have appeared in there somewhere.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Yeah i do admit iam wrong it was never my intention to say i was right and everyone wrong, merely that its strange that belief without proof is a very real thing practiced by billions of people yet belief cant be factored into any kind of scientific method because the science police of the day say you cant ... Well, there are lots of things practiced by billions of people which aren't science. If it comes to that, there are lots of things people do every day which aren't literature, American football, veterinary medicine, etc.
I would like to thank you for admitting you are part of the majority opinion within this thread and demonstrating so beautifully the effects of the fallacy on the search for truth. If the fallacy you're referring to is the argumentum ad populum, well said.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 107 of 262 (695303)
04-04-2013 1:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 95 by Ossat
04-04-2013 8:48 AM
|
|
I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God No, you'd need more knowledge than you presently have.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by Ossat, posted 04-04-2013 8:48 AM | | Ossat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 6:12 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Are you trying to agree with the OP that the ad populum fallacy should be incorporated into the scientific method, or are you trying to change the subject?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: faith is not needed
I believe I have shown ample critical thinking skills in this post ... And that's just one of the untrue things you believe.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 153 of 262 (695558)
04-07-2013 2:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
04-07-2013 10:02 AM
|
|
Re: better living through chemistry
Given the evidence you've presented, you're akin to a forensic anthropologist who concludes, "We have a body, therefore it was murder." "... and the murderer was Ferdinand Q. Mulberrybush, a three-legged man with purple hair and a pet unicorn ... what do you mean, you can't locate anyone fitting that description? Look harder!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by Percy, posted 04-07-2013 10:02 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2