Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 262 (695559)
04-07-2013 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Ossat
04-05-2013 6:12 AM


I have more knowledge than I had before.
But not as much as you need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 6:12 AM Ossat has not replied

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


Message 172 of 262 (695631)
04-08-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 10:04 AM


Not sure if you have read the rest of the posts in this topic but this has nothing to do with denomination, or belief in any one named deity. Its just the simple fact that 80 odd percent of the worlds population believe in some form of higher intelligence not of this universe that has God like qualities.
Name one other humanity wide argumentum ad populum that covers 80 odd percent of the human population today.
I believe I did. Ask "the human population" what happens when a running man drops an object he's carrying, i.e. what path the object takes to the ground.
And as I pointed out, the reason why they get this wrong is not because they are short of data, they've seen gravity, they've seen people dropping things. Certainly there is no body of people indoctrinating them with the wrong answer and telling them they'll go to hell if they don't provide it when asked. And yet they are consistently, overwhelmingly wrong.
Here's another thing that over 90% of people get wrong, this time in logic. I have a deck of cards, each with a letter on one side, and a number on the other. I deal out four cards so that their face-up appearance is A, B, 4, 7. I inform you that these cards follow the rule that if there is a vowel on one side, there is an odd number on the other side. Which card or cards do you need to turn over in order to check that I'm telling the truth?
About 3% of people will give the right answer. Over 80% of people will give the same wrong answer. Again, no-one had to bring them up to give the wrong answer or threaten them with damnation if they didn't.
Let's do one more, this time in math. (I could keep this up all night.) You know that your wife is one of those one-in-a-thousand people who carries the FNUD gene. You wonder if you're carrying it too, because if you are it might be better to adopt than to risk having children. You go to a genetic analyst who tests you and says that you do indeed carry the gene. If the test is 99% accurate, what is the probability that the analyst got it wrong?
Almost everyone gets this wrong. I remember getting it wrong myself when I was eighteen. Today I have a Ph.D. in math, so it's not like I'm lacking in natural aptitude. And no-one had to tell me that I'd suffer eternal torment if I didn't give the wrong answer.
The fact that almost everyone makes the same mistakes in science, in logic, and in math does not make their mistakes scientific, logical, or mathematical.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM divermike1974 has not replied

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


Message 174 of 262 (695640)
04-08-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 11:18 AM


You must be thick, i am merely quoting the things that the worlds top scientists are saying this very day ...
No, look. What Pressie was objecting to was that you said that the universe was "relatively simple to explain". Now, the only two scientists you quoted on this thread said that the universe possessed "underlying simplicity and elegance". They didn't say that it was "simple to explain". The brightest and best physicists are still struggling to explain it.
I thought this forum would be full of people who actually know the current state of theoretical physics, but it just seems to be full of Walter mitty idiots.
I'm glad that there's finally someone on this forum who does know the current state of theoretical physics, and is not a "Walter mitty idiot". Could you please explain to me why M-theory suggests that SO(32) is dual to E8E8?
Is that "relatively simple to explain"?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 11:18 AM divermike1974 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 177 of 262 (695647)
04-08-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 12:43 PM


Definition of Complex = composed of many interconnected parts.
Well, no, so this is a bad time for you to become arrogant.
If you don't think that that defines complex and describes how the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe ...
Well, according to your own semi-definition, it would appear that my entire body would be even more complex, since that has more interconnected parts than my brain alone. And an elephant would be more complex than that, since it has even more interconnected parts than I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 12:43 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 3:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(1)
Message 187 of 262 (695687)
04-08-2013 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 3:17 PM


If the whole universe is made up of a combination of 12 fundamental particles that are governed by 4 fundamental forces, then the very fact that you and i are not only self aware but also aware of each other and are involved in a discussion about our very existence is to me a definite indication that our brains are more complex than our bodies.
My body includes my brain. If there is some sense in which the part can be more complex than the whole, now would be a great time for you to explain it.
As for becoming arrogant ...
As for being arrogant, it is only with considerable restraint on my part that I'm not choosing my own adjectives for you right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 3:17 PM divermike1974 has not replied

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


Message 188 of 262 (695688)
04-08-2013 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 3:43 PM


yes you are right but those fallacies relate to the practice of the scientific method, not religious faith.
So ... it would be unscientific to apply the argumentum ad populum to scientific matters ... but scientific to apply it to unscientific matters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 3:43 PM divermike1974 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 189 of 262 (695689)
04-08-2013 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 12:43 PM


Comparative measurement? The human brain and the body that supports it is made up of a mixture of subatomic particles. There are only 12 different types of these particles ...
Twelve, eh? Since you're lecturing us on "the current state of theoretical physics" could you list them? Only I can think of more than that, and I'd be fascinated to know which ones you don't think exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 12:43 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by divermike1974, posted 04-09-2013 4:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 203 of 262 (695813)
04-09-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ringo
04-09-2013 12:06 PM


Of course the belief in a flat earth at the center of the universe did come from religious belief, not science ...
Usually from neither. It came from "common sense".
Galileo's ghost is eager to hear your list.
The people who persecuted Galileo did not any of them believe that the Earth was flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ringo, posted 04-09-2013 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ringo, posted 04-10-2013 12:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(1)
Message 204 of 262 (695815)
04-09-2013 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Ossat
04-09-2013 8:18 AM


But when it comes to evolutionary or any issue relating distant past I become very skeptic as many things (like origin of life) cannot be reproduced by experiment an so leave space for biased conclusions of the researcher according to his/her own mindsets. science may be very accurate, but is still practiced by subjective people
The people don't matter so long as the science is "very accurate". Roses don't smell any the worse for having been grown in manure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Ossat, posted 04-09-2013 8:18 AM Ossat has not replied

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


Message 205 of 262 (695817)
04-09-2013 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by divermike1974
04-09-2013 4:18 AM


There are 12 fundamental particles that make make up all the matter in the universe 6 leptons and 6 quarks. Instead of me naming the ones you are talking about why don't you name them and show where they are located within all the matter in the universe?
please remember the definition of fundamental and also that they have to present in the actual matter in the universe as it stands and not to have once existed as part of a process i.e. That they have not been victim to particle annihilation.
Well, how about we start with the photon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by divermike1974, posted 04-09-2013 4:18 AM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by divermike1974, posted 04-09-2013 2:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(2)
Message 210 of 262 (695856)
04-09-2013 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by divermike1974
04-09-2013 2:56 PM


Nearly mate but a photon has no mass therefore it isn't present in any of the matter within the universe.
If there weren't any gauge bosons then the universe would be a lot simpler. But less like the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by divermike1974, posted 04-09-2013 2:56 PM divermike1974 has not replied

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


Message 218 of 262 (695920)
04-10-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ringo
04-10-2013 12:10 PM


One piece of evidence for a round earth is the shape of the earth's shadow on the moon - but that only works if you believe/know that it is the earth's shadow. That belief/knowledge depends on cosmology which often depends on religion. In a cosmology which has the moon's phases caused by the gods (eating the moon or whatever), you might find the best evidence for the earth's shape by looking out the window.
Hmm ... I think you're reaching a little.
Also, the moon's phases are not caused by the Earth's shadow on the moon. Eclipses of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow, the phases of the moon aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ringo, posted 04-10-2013 12:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 04-10-2013 12:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 221 of 262 (695923)
04-10-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by divermike1974
04-10-2013 4:00 AM


Re: No need for scripture.
Right there are a few people posting scripture quotes. While i am a believer and one of the Christian variety, this topic has nothing to do with scripture or denomination its about the pure fact that no matter where in the world you go with regards humanity, the vast majority believe in some form of deity. From the most isolated micro societies to the colossal modern civilization we posters are from, God is in our brains (lives). Coupling this with the modern understanding of the physiological complexity of the human brain within the evolution of the universe how can belief not be classed as a scientific quantity?
"Classed as a scientific quantity" is a strange and vague phrase.
Should people's beliefs about what happens to an object dropped by a running man be "classed as a scientific quantity"?
Their beliefs on this subject are of interest to certain scientists, namely psychologists studying the manifold ways in which humans are commonly wrong, but they have no bearing on the question in physics, do they?
As for "the physiological complexity of the human brain", sure, it's complex. But sadly, it's not always right.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 4:00 AM divermike1974 has not replied

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


Message 223 of 262 (695929)
04-10-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by divermike1974
04-10-2013 12:27 PM


Re: No need for invisible men..
But you could also say that with modern understanding of how unbelievably amazing the universe is and how unfathomable a place it really is that modern skeptics are also victims of their own imaginations in thinking that they understand enough of existence and the universe to say with such certainty that there isn't a God. When in reality the true value of how much we actually know is probably more or less nothing compared with what there is to know.
You could say that, but that would be a completely different argument. I could rebut it if you like, but it would be off-topic.
The question was whether the current popularity of belief in God in itself makes that belief scientific. The answer would appear to be "no".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 12:27 PM divermike1974 has not replied

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


(4)
Message 228 of 262 (695940)
04-10-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by divermike1974
04-10-2013 1:11 PM


Re: belief
Humanity would have failed long ago it it didn't believe 'it could do it'
Belief is integral to human success. Once we believed we could sail round the world and we did, once we believed we could land on the moon and we did, at the moment we believe we can land man on Mars and we probably will.
Imagining we can do somthing makes us plan to do it, we envision the obstacles to over come and the requirements needed to do it. Believing we can do it motivates us to overcome those obstacles and to procure the requirements and skills to do it.
This very day there are probably hundreds of science students studying for degrees who will spend their whole careers imagining, believing and planning to send man to Mars.
the statement at the top only makes sense if it is the propaganda of an idiot.
It is true that belief is a strong motivating force. But that has no bearing on the question of whether it is a reliable way to establish facts. Yes, people believed that they could put a man on the moon, this motivated them to try it, and they succeeded. They were right. Some people believed that they could get rich by investing in Enron, this motivated them to try it, and they failed. They were wrong. Some people believed that they could build perpetual motion machines, this motivated them to try it, and they failed. They were wrong. Some cult leaders believed that they could raise the dead, this motivated them to try it, and they failed. They were wrong. And so forth.
It is true that if we never believed true things, we'd never try and succeed --- but on the other hand lots of people have believed false things and failed. The belief itself does not guarantee truth, and does not guarantee success. "Belief is integral to human success" you write. Sure. But it is also integral to human failure.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 1:11 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 1:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024