FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Religion

Greetings!

Religion Discussions on religions, mysticism, and spirituality as well as opposing views such as agnosticism and atheism.

View Poll Results: How many people believe what they believe.
I believe in a Personal Creator God and a Devil. 0 0%
I believe in a Personal Creator God but not Devil. 1 9.09%
I believe in an unknown Conscious God (Deist). 0 0%
I believe creation was natural process following laws of physics. 8 72.73%
I am a true Agnostic meaning undecided. 2 18.18%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:49 PM
andy_amfad andy_amfad is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Very interesting points Mike D.
Way too often I see people quoting the bible as infallible. I do wish they would understand that if a god were to create a bible and give it to us, there would be no question, unless he is no different then the old gods before him/her/it.
i agree with this.
its a shame that people make the same mistake with reason.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:05 AM
Ragi's Avatar
Ragi Ragi is offline
Introverted Excavator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Yes. You answered your own question, basically.
No. That's the logical fallacy of affirming the consequence. The fact that science works in very obvious and practical ways says nothing about it being an accurate description of reality. It's like saying God exists because the Bible says so, because He wrote it. You're using science to prove that science is an accurate description of the way things are.

Both operate under the logic:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.



Which is nonsense.

Here's an example taken from Wikipedia that might help:
1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
2. Bill Gates is rich.
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Example of your reasoning about science from same:
1. Theory P predicts that we will observe Q.
2. Experimental observation shows Q.
3. Therefore theory P is true.

This is built into science, and any good scientist knows this. The knowledge science gives us is particular and contingent (describing phenomena, and only after operating under certain assumptions), not universal/necessary/certain (describing reality).

Appropriate some of the history of science and you see this all over the place. eg. Newton's model of the universe works in so many obvious ways (you trust that the building you are in will remain standing), but Einstein showed how its all wrong.
__________________
Some of my art

When you smile it is like a song and I can hear it now

Last edited by Ragi; 11-14-2009 at 06:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-14-2009, 10:50 PM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
No, I think you misunderstand what science means over religion. Science shows proofs and evidence, not hand a book over and say it is so. It is called empirical evidence. Showing a book like a bible and saying a god wrote it is NOT the same thing as experiments or tests to show something that is real like testing gravity or testing what two different chemicals do when applied together. BIG difference. So in reality your answer answered your own question.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:21 AM
andy_amfad andy_amfad is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 323
if god is personal, why do you need faith?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-15-2009, 03:05 AM
Ragi's Avatar
Ragi Ragi is offline
Introverted Excavator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
No, I think you misunderstand what science means over religion. Science shows proofs and evidence, not hand a book over and say it is so. It is called empirical evidence. Showing a book like a bible and saying a god wrote it is NOT the same thing as experiments or tests to show something that is real like testing gravity or testing what two different chemicals do when applied together. BIG difference. So in reality your answer answered your own question.
Umm, well I guess I can only suggest you reread my post more carefully, because I addressed your problem. I don't mean to sound like an asshole but it feels almost like Luke Wilson's character in Idiocracy trying to address why the plants would ever need to be watered by Gatorade:

Attorney General: "Brawndo's got what plants crave."
Secretary of Energy: "Yeah, it's got electrolytes."
Joe: "What are electrolytes? Do you even know?"
Secretary of State: "It's what they use to make Brawndo."
Joe: "Yeah, but why do they use them to make Brawndo?"
Secretary of Defense: "'Cause Brawndo's got electrolytes."

I know you're obviously way smarter than that Dragon, but maybe that exaggerated example will make more clear how you've bought into the rhetoric and are now just repeating without thinking it through. Think about the assumptions science must operate under in order to try to be empirical (which it isn't fully of course. There must be interpretation, which is always reinterpreted back into the previous assumptions). As we've already seen, just because a theory works, it doesn't mean it was ever accurate.
__________________
Some of my art

When you smile it is like a song and I can hear it now
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-16-2009, 02:03 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
All of science is based on faith. There is nothing a mind can know about the universe except to some number of decimal places of accuracy. You can never be sure (ever - even in principle) that the next time you drop a shoe it will not fall upward. For something to be true scientifically means it is true by virtue of it being tested by some population. But there are no instruments for testing things in the universe to infinite accuracy and even if there were for something to be true in this way would require an infinite population that agrees with it. Science is based on inference and induction. Statistics and probability. Sample size confidence intervals. There is no certainty in science. Mathematics is based on deduction. If the premises are true the conclusion must be true. Mathematical truth does not depend on testing in the universe. If I say all A is B and all B is C so all A is C, it does not depend on what A,B, or C are. The truth of this statement does not require the universe and is true to an infinite number of decimal places. Mathematical truth is applied to the universe with hypothesis/theories but since it involves things in the universe it can never be certain. The most certain (acurate) theory in physics is QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) and this theory has been tested to 13 decimal places.

So all of science is based on faith/probability/statistics/inference/induction. Applying mathematical tools (equations) with their certainty to things in the universe removes its certainty. The universe is the CONTENT. The models are the CONTEXT. It is also not possible even in principle to separate content (the universe) from its context (language used to convey meaning to the content - mathematics is a language). This means everything we perceive (content) is biased by the language we use (context) to describe it. For example, if I say abortion is murder, that conotates one thing. But if I say the fetus was removed - that is a whole different meaning.

There is much confusion about what is subjective and what is objective. For something to be objectively true, 2 or more minds must agree it is true to some number of decimal places. The more minds and more decimal places the more objectively true it is. But that does NOT mean this objective truth is THE reality of the phenomena. Not for a moment. If I go looking for tuba wave components in traffic noise, I will find components of tuba waves in traffic noise. And if many other people do the same thing and similarly discover tuba wave components of sound in traffic noise, then tuba waves in traffic noise constitutes objective reality. (this is Nick Herbert Quantum Reality). If however I go looking for piano waves in traffic noise, I will also find components of piano waves in traffic noise. And similarly if many other people go looking for piano waves in traffic noise and find them, then piano waves in traffic noise is objective reality. And so are flute waves, trombone waves, your waves here etc. That gives us many 'objective' realities. Which one is the 'real' one? None of them. They are only objective aspects.

Kant identified the fact that as soon as we perceive something we bias it and this is a phenomena. The raw data from the senses + the minds take on what it means/how a mind classifes the raw data from the senses. Kant said things in the universe that exist as they are independent of a mind to bias them he called 'noumena'. Unfortunately, since it is not possible to get out from under our rose-colored glasses perception of noumena we are forever stuck as minds with phenoumena - the thing + the bias our minds give to it. And thus, we are stuck with multiple objective realities. Or you could say 'As a man seeks, so he shall find.' The reality you seek is the reality you find. Content cannot be separated from context. We see more than the physics of the situation. We add order to the raw data from the senses from the universe.

It is not possible for any 2 minds to ever agree on anything in the universe except to some number of decimal places. This is because all minds of people growing up in life experience different phenomena and program their minds (bias them) in different ways to make sense of things in the universe. Furthermore, it is not possible for a single mind to believe the same thing of the exact same phenomena from instant to instant except to some number of decimal places because at every instant the mind is experiencing new things and changing its perspective ever so slightly from instant to instant. 'No one steps into the same river twice' says Heraclitis.

Consciousness is the Experiencer. The mind simply captures conceptions of experiences. The mind classifies the experiences giving them a word/model/category to explain it. But the word is not the experience. The thought of Hawaii is not Hawaii. Experiencing the thought of Hawaii is one thing. Experiencing Hawaii is another thing entirely. The map is not the territory. Consciousness is one thing. The mind something entirely external to consciousness. If I see a tree, I am not the tree. If I think the thought(form) of a tree, I am not the thought of the tree. We are not what we are aware OF.

No one has ever seen a 'one' before. Everyone can give me any number of examples of the abstract notion of 'one' but 'ones' do not grow on trees or swim in the ocean. 'One' is a category in your mind only. That is the only existence it has as an abstract idea. But similarly so are ALL OTHER words. Words and all language (except from babies and animals conveying instinctive sounds) are similarly abstract ideas. 'Dogs' does not exist in the universe. 'Dogs' can be short or tall, male or female, have long fur or short etc. No one has seen a single creature 'dogs' that has all these characteristics. 'Dogs' is a category in the mind to classify certain phenomena in the universe (and make sense out of it fast and survive). They bark, wag their tails, drools etc. We classify phenomena from the senses with word categories to make sense of it. It is a mistake however to believe that because you have classified something in the universe in a particular way as a thought ('dogs') which you can recollect by becoming conscious of it - that you can simply do away with experiencing dogs in the universe with your senses. You do not know 'dogs' by your classification of them. You only know particular aspects of them that way - in the same way you can classify traffic noise in terms of tuba waves or piano waves. Neither is more 'real'. (Its liket the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant).

So there is a reality associated with the senses and is a basis for science and there is another completely abstract reality of thoughts/words and that is what language (and don't forget mathematics is a language) is about. But the 2 types of realities - scientific truth and mathematical truth are true for different reasons. If you give someone a triangle and ask them if their are 180 degrees in it they may measure it and say yes there is. That would be the method of science. But someone knowledgeable of the properties of all triangles (in flat Euclidean space) knows it is 180 degrees without bothering to measure it. If it is a triangle, it NECESSARILY must have 180 degrees. Mathematical truth arises from a set of axioms (premises) being logically manipulated to produce theorems. Theorems are truth implicit in the axioms/premises made explicit by theorems. There is no amount of testing that can make something true mathematically. (like there is in science using empirical testing). Theorems (like there being 180 degrees in all triangles) arise as consequences of logical manipulations of axioms (premises). No testing required for this deductive sort of truth.

So all of reality for a mind comes in the form of scientific truth (based on faith/inference/induction and is not certain) and mathematical truth which is certain but only can be applied to the abstract universe of language. Put in those terms you can construct an (abstract) theory and see if something in the universe conforms to it to some number of decimal places. Its the best consciousness can do with a mind and the senses to make sense of the universe in that way.

F = ma. Great. Why not F = 2ma ever other Saturday night? This equation that describes gravity is a description of gravity only. It will not tell you why it is not F = 2ma. A description of something is not an explanation of it. If you tell me you have joint pain, and I tell you that you have arthritis, my giving you this word does not tell you why you have joint pain or how to rid yourself of it. Descriptions of phenomena using abstract language are not explanations of them. In that sense, all of science can be said to be equivalent to Plato's 'Shadows on the wall' in his famous Allegory of the Cave. Scientific truth and mathematical truth are simply insufficient to explain many things. They cannot explain them EVEN IN PRINCIPLE.

I set out to show that science was based on faith. Well if that is true, that is also what religion is based on. But while science cannot tell you what reality is, what science can do is tell you what reality is NOT. For example if your scriptures say the universe is about 5000 years old, since this contradicts science, your scriptures are wrong. The value of a belief system is its ability to explain MORE phenomena in the universe than other belief systems while at the same time not being in conflict with scientific or mathematical truth. The more your scriputures contradict science the more faith you must have in your scriptures and that means the less value they have. If you had the understanding you would need less faith/could dump such faith as excess baggage.

Last edited by Mike Dubbeld; 11-16-2009 at 02:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-16-2009, 06:05 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Showing a book like a bible and saying a god wrote it is NOT the same thing as experiments
Correct. Beliefs based on beliefs - and nothing else - is not even a belief. While over 70% of the Hebrew is scientifically proven and the world turns by its laws today - there is not even 1% proof behind anything in the Gospels - and not a single non-muslim accepts anything in the Quran.

Both those religions believed the earth to be flat - but the far more ancient Hebrew did not. Both make the most wild accusations of the Jews - without having an iota of proof - while both are in total contradiction of each other. How did they get away with it - and still do? I'd say its mostly because of those cowardly atheist scientist believers!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-16-2009, 06:18 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post

No one has ever seen a 'one' before.
That is not science but the Hebrew bible - which predates and introduced the faculty of science. That there is no ONE in the universe is derived from the Hebrew bible. A true ONE refers to the infinite Creator, requiring no counterpart to perform an action. This also means that all components in the universe, including life - first emerged as a duality ['Male and female created He them'/Genesis]. Scientifically and mathematically, this has no alternative.


This is also why Genesis' preamble declares the universe finite - while ToE scientists run far from this and instead chorus on without commas when starting their process in mid-stream. Genesis begins with the second alphabet, which accounts for 2 - a duality. Namely, 'B' [TWO/DUALITY] WAS IN THE BEGINNING.

There is no such thing as science or math when the above is not ratified as the preamble. All else ends up in the cyclical - the proof it is wrong. It takes two to tango.

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-16-2009, 09:18 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Good joke. Where are your references? Genesis is not a reference anymore than Shakesphere is a reference. At best IAJ you are pretty funny. At worst simply a liar. You may take that personally but if it were anyone else presenting garbage I would proceed to slap them just as hard.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-16-2009, 11:51 PM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up SHOCKED BY THE LIE!

How can a book which cannot prove a single stat claim truth? There are two, not one, books which define events in Judea, the NT and the Quran - and both contradict each other - and both cannot prove a single name, date or event they tout as heavenly truths. This has to be the greatest anomoly facing humanity.

I challenge any christans to prove anything - *ANYTHING* - even something miniscule in the Gospels which is historical? It should be ever so easy to KO me.

Quote:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115818


Vladimir Putin to finally learn real Christian truth?
No. 1 smash 'Shocked by the Bible' being translated into Russian

November 15, 2009
2009 WorldNetDaily


Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to finally have the chance to learn what the Bible really says.

Can Vladimir Putin handle the truth? The real Bible truth?

There's no mention of a Christmas tree or any tree in the gospels recording Jesus' birth. However, there is a custom mentioned in the Old Testament that shows people decorating trees with silver and gold. You might be astounded to find out what God says about such a practice
The Bible never says Jesus died on a Friday or rose from the grave Sunday morning
Scripture does not say Noah's Ark rested on "Mount Ararat"
Noah brought a lot more than just two of certain animals aboard the Ark
The word "Easter" has vanished from modern Bible translations
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-17-2009, 12:41 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
Good joke. Where are your references? Genesis is not a reference anymore than Shakesphere is a reference. At best IAJ you are pretty funny. At worst simply a liar. You may take that personally but if it were anyone else presenting garbage I would proceed to slap them just as hard.
Stop beheaving like a fool. Clearly and specifically itemsise what you refer to - REFERENCE FOR WHAT!? Minus the colorful adjectives - they only signify deflection.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-18-2009, 03:31 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Good joke. Where are your references? Genesis is not a reference anymore than Shakesphere is a reference. At best IAJ you are pretty funny. At worst simply a liar. You may take that personally but if it were anyone else presenting garbage I would proceed to slap them just as hard.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-23-2009, 03:01 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
Good joke. Where are your references? Genesis is not a reference anymore than Shakesphere is a reference. At best IAJ you are pretty funny. At worst simply a liar. You may take that personally but if it were anyone else presenting garbage I would proceed to slap them just as hard.
Shakespear was influenced by the majesty of the Hebrew writings - the first aphabetical books and the introduction of grammar and a host of sublime phares which are now part of all language expressionisms. LET THERE BE LIGHT!

When you ask for proof - you have to complete your sentence.

When you want to disprove something - you have to disprove it.

Colorful adjectives like lier, fool, pretty funny does not apply.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Nef Raven's Avatar
Nef Raven Nef Raven is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,011
Blog Entries: 81
A finite universe IamJoseph? You mean like the earth is flat. Columbus took care of that idea.



I do not disapprove of anything in the bible. I do disapprove of misinterpretations of it and let me tell you, " I HAVE HEARD TALES"..... Pretty much nothing surprises me anymore.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Forum Wars, Episode I. galatomic General Philosophy 7 06-03-2009 04:37 PM
My off-topic tangent room Meme Virus Off-topic 276 04-11-2009 03:23 AM
FORUM POLL: WHICH IS THE WORLD'S SECOND MOST MORAL ARMY? IamJoseph Politics and World Events 18 04-08-2009 03:29 AM
Forum Rules and How to Create a Poll icest0rm Opinion Polls 0 06-05-2008 12:46 AM
Canada ignores terrorist domestic threat poll from 50,000 Canadian Muslims Marty McFly Politics and World Events 0 02-21-2007 02:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network