|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 31, 2006, 4:16 AM
Post #26 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: In reply to: But I thought that there was only one true god? 700,000,000 Hindus say you're wrong. Their religious view of the cosmos comes closes to what science perceives as reality than any other major religion, by far. DMT So you converting anytime soon. I can see it now Lord Krishna dingus. Catchy name or what? I can see the long flowing orange ropes and the bald head with a big tail hanging out the back, incense burning out of his chalkbag as he climbs and is one with the mountain. :D
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 31, 2006, 4:49 AM
Post #27 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But I thought that there was only one true god? 700,000,000 Hindus say you're wrong. Their religious view of the cosmos comes closes to what science perceives as reality than any other major religion, by far. DMT So you converting anytime soon. I can see it now Lord Krishna dingus. Catchy name or what? I can see the long flowing orange ropes and the bald head with a big tail hanging out the back, incense burning out of his chalkbag as he climbs and is one with the mountain. :D The beauty of Hinduism (in a theological sense moreso than the actual practice of it) is that you don't have to convert; it'll just absorb you and your beliefs. I mean, everyone knows that Jesus Christ is nothing more than the incarnation of Vishnu. Hare Krsna! Hare Rama! Hare Dingus! [Congratulations! You have just been deified! For an aditional $9.99 you can move up one space in the pantheon of 330 million (or so) Devas]
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 31, 2006, 5:27 AM
Post #28 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: infact, creation is more logical as a belief, cause you only have to have faith in one thing (that god did it all for his own [not terribly clear] reasons) rather then with evolution, where you have to have faith that many different things all happened spontaniously for no particular reason, resulting in humans. On the surface, belief in this "one thing" does seem simple. But let's look at what you're really saying. Firstly, you have to believe in the existence of some immensely powerful super-being with the capability to create the 10^21 or so stars in the visible universe. You have to believe that this being has always existed, in order to avoid problems of infinite regression - in other words, this incredibly powerful, complex being just happens to exist. You have to believe that there is no innate contradiction here. You have to believe that this being, for its own reasons, fudged all the evidence to make it look exactly like the universe has been around for around 15 billion years, and the earth for around 6, with life gradually developing over around 4.5 billion or so years. To be a scientist, on the other hand, you need just one, very simple "faith" - that what you see is real. Everything else follows from that.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 31, 2006, 7:26 AM
Post #31 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: To be a scientist, on the other hand, you need just one, very simple "faith" - that what you see is real. Everything else follows from that. What about things you can't see but must be there? Like dark matter? Where did all this matter come from? Cause and effect right? Had to come from somewhere. So answer me this, scientist, where? :wtf: Firstly, I only made a statement about what we can see. I made no statement - whatsoever - about what we can't see. That's the whole f---ing point! Secondly, would somebody please tell me what is so hard about saying "I don't know"? We don't know where matter came from. I don't know, you don't know, your mother doesn't know, the Pope doesn't know. Big fricking deal. Finally, regarding dark matter: we can see that the amount of visible matter in galaxies does not account for the amount of mass that gravitational calculations say should be there. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain this deficit. It's not the only one by far. Observations are now being made to try and shed light on what's really going on. Oh, and Phil: String theory is simply a self-consistent mathematical framework that ties together two separate theories, both of which are extremely well supported by observed data. At present, it has made no unique predictions that we can test with current technology. As with climbinginchico, your question is a bit of a non-sequitur - no respectable scientist can be said to have faith in string theory any more than they can be said to have faith in dark matter - it is simply a working model that will be validated or discarded based on observations of physical reality.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Aug 31, 2006, 12:22 PM
Post #32 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: To be a scientist, on the other hand, you need just one, very simple "faith" - that what you see is real. Everything else follows from that. I see the edge of the Earth when I go to the beach... right over there on the horizon.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 31, 2006, 12:37 PM
Post #34 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: To be a scientist, on the other hand, you need just one, very simple "faith" - that what you see is real. Everything else follows from that. I see the edge of the Earth when I go to the beach... right over there on the horizon. No, you see the sky and the sea, and you see a line where your views of these come together. Those are real enough. Your hypothesis is that this is the edge of the Earth. An alternative hypothesis is that this border is where your line of sight becomes tangential to the surface of the ocean.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 31, 2006, 2:40 PM
Post #35 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Secondly, would somebody please tell me what is so hard about saying "I don't know"? Allow me... Saying "I don't know" is a piss poor way to win an argument. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 31, 2006, 2:56 PM
Post #36 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But I thought that there was only one true god? 700,000,000 Hindus say you're wrong. Their religious view of the cosmos comes closes to what science perceives as reality than any other major religion, by far. DMT So you converting anytime soon. I can see it now Lord Krishna dingus. Catchy name or what? I can see the long flowing orange ropes and the bald head with a big tail hanging out the back, incense burning out of his chalkbag as he climbs and is one with the mountain. :D Conversion implies a starting point. I'm only interested in a starting PINT. And orange robes, doesn't the pope were those when he administers papal smears with those tasteless hostESS cookies they pass out at primitive Baptist conventions, county fairs and minstral shows through the south? Cheers DMT
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 31, 2006, 6:27 PM
Post #37 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Dingus wins the chalice, er... grail, um, I mean trophy! Yeah, that's it! Thanks for the insight and the laughs, man! GO
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 31, 2006, 8:21 PM
Post #38 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: No respectable scientist can be said to have faith in string theory any more than they can be said to have faith in dark matter - it is simply a working model that will be validated or discarded based on observations of physical reality. You're lieing to yourself if you believe that. There is a certain bit of required faith to put forth any theory. Belief and faith are synonymous. I mean, in the mystical magical land where no scientist actually believes the truth of his or her research, then yes, no scientists have faith in the existence of dark matter. But scientific careers aren't built around a devil's advocacy. You have to believe it to study it. Unless your goal is to disprove it. String theory, by the way, isn't science. No unique claims, no way to disprove it? That makes it metaphysics. Which is the real realm of faith.
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 31, 2006, 9:05 PM
Post #39 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: let's see, based on reason: Somthing has never been made out of nothing. Everything we know of was created or made. Where did the elements that made up the big bang come from? Sounds like you have a lot of faith. And you sound especially smart when all you can say is "moron" or "your mom" BTW. Then where did God come from smart guy? :lol: edited for the smiley.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Aug 31, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #40 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
This is interesting to read through. But too much stuff gets crammed into the wrong compartments. First: "RELIGION IS IRRATIONAL. A RATIONAL PERSON CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST FAITH AND BELIEF IN "MAGICAL GODS" AND "MIRACLES" SINCE THESE THINGS ARE NOT BASED IN LOGIC." For starters, religion and spirituality are different. Spiritual study engages the non-material, and language and logic fail when it comes to trying to handle anything but things. Logic, and the rational mind, are geared to handle content in black and white terms, with no ambivalance and with functions and attributes that are largely if not entirely constant and predictable. Neither logic or rationality can get hold of the non-material or the non-quantifiable--just note how people grapple around trying to dismiss even the idea of the existence of that which cannot be measured. But that's the challenge of dealing with trying to bottle infinite qualities, since the infinite includes the bottle. Another thing is the foolish idea that all of this (non-material) stuff is irrational. In fact, just the idea of it is irrational, not the reality of it. And remeber, the idea is not the reality. Lastly, notice how glibly the really big questions get written off as immaterial (pun, my own). Re: Where did material come from, which indeed is not a question in the context of the infinite, but when you have a starting point like the Big Bang, it simply won't do to accuse the question of being not worth asking, or slamming people for asking it in the first instance. What could be a more obvious question? Because you can't answer it in the standard means simply means said means are not up to the task. You have to look at things in a different way. The fact that you lack the experience of looking at things in any other way does not preclude the existence of other ways, but if you are stuck with the criteria of your way as being the only viable way, you're left with sticking your head into the sand. There simply is no way arond what math wiz Whitehead said so long ago: Nothing comes form nothing. Attempts to write the question off as irrational are simply admissions that the stanard means of inquiry fall short--something many are loath to admit. The fact that the question does not lend itself to standard inquiry is reason enough to blow it off -- but only to those chained to a perspective that simply won't admit in anything that does not conform to and confirm their perspective. It's the existential equal of top ropping the same slab over and over and over again and saying all other climbs are not worth trying, or are undoable, or imaginary, or illogical. Some people look up at El Cap and back off. Others push on regardless of the obvious difficulty. Some say El Cap doesn't esist. Some say it's not worth the effort. Slab climbers say it's not worth trying since it doesn't involve their preferred technique, also ading that only their technique is viable. But EWl Cap still stands, and some climb it still . . . JL
|
|
|
|
|
phojar
Aug 31, 2006, 10:58 PM
Post #41 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2006
Posts: 64
|
In reply to: The fact that you lack the experience of looking at things in any other way does not preclude the existence of other ways, but if you are stuck with the criteria of your way as being the only viable way, you're left with sticking your head into the sand. This is a good point that both sides of any argument should realize. That being said an educated person should research both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion based on facts they have learned. I find this amusing after seeing the number of people who jumped on CCH during this last fiasco without the OP posting up something more concrete. In addition, I have found that discussing religion with someone who is very religious usually a pointless proposition because more often than not the discussion ends in a "if it doesn't say so in the Bible it isn't true." Or something to that effect. I think the OP's point, (at least the way I read it) is that people of extreme faith will discount all ideas about the origins of being that do not support their own beliefs. Which, like you said, simply sticking your head in the sand. Of course evolutionist do exactly the same thing. The part about organized religion I dislike is the idea that one group of people is right and everyone else is wrong. If people could have their own beliefs and still respect other people beliefs it would do a lot to ease tension between different dogmas.
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Aug 31, 2006, 11:31 PM
Post #42 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
[quote="phojar"][In addition, I have found that discussing religion with someone who is very religious usually a pointless proposition because more often than not the discussion ends in a "if it doesn't say so in the Bible it isn't true." (/quote] My point exactly, thouugh my arguments have been leveled against the materialists, who hold the same fundamantalist beliefs about matter being the one and only. If somethingdoes not fit in their perspective, it is written off much as a fundy Christian will duck away from anthing not bibilcally supported. The ironic thing is that both perspectives issue from the same psychological impulse: the desperate need to be "right." What is actually true (not a qualified truth) is an entirely different matter. Another point that gets passed over here is the being in human being, and how that factors into consciousness, which for some is handled soley in terms of quantifiable functions--a very limited paradigm indeed. JL JL
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 1, 2006, 2:03 AM
Post #43 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: In reply to: I know something else that is brown. Trophy post if ever there were one. BTW, CK: Oxymoron isn't hyphenated. Kinda thought you'd know that, being a highly educated scientist and all. You would address a stupid spelling error, rather than the main purpose of the post
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 1, 2006, 2:11 AM
Post #44 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: In reply to: But I don't know why so many people care. Its about being on the winning football team, same as politics. We want our god to be a WINNER. If our god is a winner, WE'RE WINNERS TOO... )by god!). You need look no deeper *for most.* Now of course there are those deeply spiritual people who transcend all that s--- and make of religion probably what we should all make of it. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the rest of us. Our debates and arguments here manifest this desire to win, btw. DMT Honestly, I really don't give a flying fuck what people believe. But when they start pushing their fucked up, irrational beliefs onto our government (i.e. forcing schools to teach religion), that's when I get angry.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 1, 2006, 2:19 AM
Post #45 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: From a grossly oversimplified world view, yes, belief in evolution is not a religion. But when you've seen as many knuckle dragging grad students and internet experts as I have, all chanting "Darwin" with a neanderthal-esque zeal, you start to wonder. Evolution as a theory is perfectly scientific. But when its taken to a dogmatic level, its as much a religion as the religions its being used to "disprove". But good job on setting up a strawman. See, believing in evolution and believing in whatever god you choose still breaks down to one single leap of faith. Either you believe one explanation, or you believe another, or you abstain and stay agnostic. But DO NOT delude yourself into believing that one is more rational than another. If the world really was created five thousand years ago in precisely six days exactly as it came to be with all of this premanufactured evidence, it would look exactly the same as if it took billions of years of accretion and evolution. So you simply have to choose. I "beieve" in evolution just as I "believe" that I need to drink water to survive. The size of the gap between your beliefs and the evidence for their existence is what determines how rational they are. I.e. my belief that I need to drink water to survive is backed up by thousands of years of people dying due to dehydration. Evolution is backed up by millions of years of archeological evidence, millions of laboratory experiments, real-time observations, and even experiments that I have performed in high school biology on fruit flies. The size of the belief gap between "the earth was created in 6 days, 5000 years ago by an omnipresent being; he created two humans which then bred to create the whole population" is pretty big...I'd say it's comparable to thinking aliens are trying to steal your thoughts so you need to wear a tinfoil hat. Basically, there is no proof, quite the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 1, 2006, 2:23 AM
Post #46 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: In reply to: To be a scientist, on the other hand, you need just one, very simple "faith" - that what you see is real. Everything else follows from that. What about things you can't see but must be there? Like dark matter? Where did all this matter come from? Cause and effect right? Had to come from somewhere. So answer me this, scientist, where? This is an idiotic statement. Dark matter is still being investigated, so there isn't an answer right now. Science isn't supposed to provide answers to all questions; science is supposed to LOOK for answers.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 1, 2006, 2:33 AM
Post #47 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...String theory, by the way, isn't science. No unique claims, no way to disprove it? That makes it metaphysics. Which is the real realm of faith. That isn't true. Although we can not empirically test string theory today--it is indeed a falsifiable theory that can be tested. In fact, evidence of some particle behavior predicted by string theory may be seen when CERN brings the Large Hadron Collider on-line next year. Not that this little fun-fact really has anything to do with this thread.... Oh wait--maybe it does. The real difference between science and faith is that science deals with testable and therefore, falsifiable theories--whereas religion does not. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 1, 2006, 2:39 AM
Post #48 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 1, 2006, 2:55 AM
Post #49 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
In reply to: There simply is no way arond what math wiz Whitehead said so long ago: Nothing comes form nothing. Attempts to write the question off as irrational are simply admissions that the stanard means of inquiry fall short--something many are loath to admit. The fact that the question does not lend itself to standard inquiry is reason enough to blow it off -- but only to those chained to a perspective that simply won't admit in anything that does not conform to and confirm their perspective. It's the existential equal of top ropping the same slab over and over and over again and saying all other climbs are not worth trying, or are undoable, or imaginary, or illogical. Some people look up at El Cap and back off. Others push on regardless of the obvious difficulty. Some say El Cap doesn't esist. Some say it's not worth the effort. Slab climbers say it's not worth trying since it doesn't involve their preferred technique, also ading that only their technique is viable. But EWl Cap still stands, and some climb it still . . . JL Firstly, something does come from nothing. Hawking radiation is created at the even horizon of a Black hole--pairs of matter and antimatter particles separate due to huge gravity gradients, where the two particles literally came from nothing, and would return to nothing if not for the huge gravity gradient. Also, even in a complete vaccuum, there is a pressure and ambient energy density. In fact, the question "can something come from nothing?" is fuzzy at best--how do you define nothing? A vaccuum? If you can prove the existence of nothing in the first place, then you can start to answer the question--but I don't think there is really such a thing as "nothing". If by "nothing" you mean zero, well, I can take 1 and -1 from 0. There's something from nothing. If I have an empty bank account, and I take out a loan to start a business, and that business makes a profit such that I can repay the loan plus some extra, well--that's something from nothing. Secondly, your El Cap comparison is quite relevant--some people choose to stick to their simplified faith in a creator (i.e. looking up at El Cap, and deciding to go home and watch tv instead of attempting it, because it takes less effort) and others decide to find a way to make the impossible possible--finding answers to the "unanswerable" questions (i.e. learning how to climb, training hard, and making an attempt at El Cap--doing what is difficult). ----- This thread has brought up some interesting points that are worth addressing; 1. To succeed in life, in general, requires faith--in one's abilities, the future, one's scientific theories. 2. Humans are irrational by nature (even the most accomplished scientist). 3. The line between that which is "belief" and that which is "fact" is fuzzy. Number 1 is obvious--without faith in anything, there would be no reason to chase one's goals. But on the flipside, with too much faith, there is also no reason to chase one's goals (i.e. If I believe I'm going to heaven, why should I try to make the world a better place? What's it matter to me?) 2. People are irrational. Even scientific communities have loads of drama between people with clashing interests and different opinions. Egos get big, people argue, even if they're wrong. Some (if not many) scientists are completely off the handle. These things are difficulties that stand in the way of achieving the goals of science, that is, to find and prove what is truth and what is not truth. 3. Facts turn into beliefs when they are proven wrong or outdated by new knowledge. It is difficult to stay up to date on what fact is, and it's difficult to make sure your sources are reliable. That's just how life is though. Creationism is not fact, based on current knowledge. Evolution is close to being fact. Existence of God is such a fuzzy question that it has no answer, and probably never will (i.e. is God a natural force, or a human-like creature? Is God timeless? Is God the universe itself?). The Big Bang could potentially be reality, assuming enough evidence is found to prove it. However that evidence will be so advanced, in terms of physics, that to anyone except a physicist, it is basically magic.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Sep 1, 2006, 3:10 AM
Post #50 of 84
(1537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: But when they start pushing their f--- up, irrational beliefs onto our government (i.e. forcing schools to teach religion), that's when I get angry. What schools have been forced by the government to teach religion?
|
|
|
|
|
|