|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2020 19:43:58 GMT
Reason beats faith - wrong
Science grounds on faith - correct
Mistakes in religious texts imply Atheism - wrong
Mistakes in religious texts doesn't imply any Atheism - correct
Science disproves God - wrong
Science cannot prove anything with certainty - correct
|
|
|
|
Post by restitutor on Nov 15, 2020 20:39:55 GMT
Reason beats faith - wrong
Science grounds on faith - correct
This doesn't mean anything. Are you arguing against reason? faith is just the idea that you can be leave anything you want without providing any intercultural underpinnings for it or having any evidence for it.
Mistakes in religious texts imply Atheism - wrong
Mistakes in religious texts doesn't imply any Atheism - correct
Nobody Cairs about this, its a straw man augment. This is what you would prefer to be talking about instead of talking about a total lack of evidence for what you are calming.
Science disproves God - wrong
Science cannot prove anything with certainty - correct
This is sophomoric and boring. Most people who understand science understand its a game of probability. I can't disprove that you are going to get a box of superpowers that for Christmas but the probability for this is extremely low, especially if the super power defy the laws of physics. The probability that you aren't going to get the superpower is extremely high. You can live your life be leaving you are going going to get superpowers and telling people that Santa hands out boxes of super powers just because the possibility of this happening it technically not zero but you shouldn't get upset when people when they tell you what they think of there prediction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 16, 2020 17:46:12 GMT
This doesn't mean anything. Are you arguing against reason? faith is just the idea that you can be leave anything you want without providing any intercultural underpinnings for it or having any evidence for it.
No, it means. It depends on how do we determine this or that term. If to take reason as all above, then surely faith will be out any rules. And vice versa for faith is as all above. I take believing and faith as something common (ad hoc), but for certain they aren't the same thing. I took believe as more general, while science (=specific reasoning) as less wider. For instance, we can think science as a kind of magic, because there are set of spells that work in some way, and this way equals to the way how the science does it. So, we can think that science is a magic of our reality; in other realities there might be other types of science.Nobody Cairs about this, its a straw man augment. This is what you would prefer to be talking about instead of talking about a total lack of evidence for what you are calming.
No, there are some who cares. There's no strawing. Actually, religion doesn't have much evidence for many cases of it, except for specific religions experience. But lack of evidence at the most core level is close to science too. Nobody knows which axioms must be taken and why; "it works" isn't an argument either.This is sophomoric and boring. Most people who understand science understand its a game of probability. I can't disprove that you are going to get a box of superpowers that for Christmas but the probability for this is extremely low, especially if the super power defy the laws of physics. The probability that you aren't going to get the superpower is extremely high. You can live your life be leaving you are going going to get superpowers and telling people that Santa hands out boxes of super powers just because the possibility of this happening it technically not zero but you shouldn't get upset when people when they tell you what they think of there prediction.
No, I don't really care about whether or not it's boring or etc. Yes, 'probability' or 'statistics' are keys to science; for instance, Carnap's "Philosophical Foundations of Physics" tells about the same - inductive or probabilistic nature of the science. But I did like the work you'd used "game". I guess it nails it. This is a game. Yet there are plenty of them. Science is just one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by restitutor on Nov 16, 2020 20:12:13 GMT
These are all topics of conversation religious people what rather be talking about, instead of presenting any evidence for the existence of god. When you arguing science can't prove what i believe isn't true then you pause and talk a long hard look at what you believe.
You are calming a false equivalency between scientific belief and religious belief. You are doing this because by doing this you can justify believing what you what. This is as wrong, as is the suggestion that if science can't disprove something then believing in it is perfectly rational.
To take sudoku as a metaphor. In this metaphor the scantiest is somebody who takes time to understand the patterns between the numbers and adds numbers into the blanks that fit with those patterns and rejecting numbers that don't fit with the self apparent rules of the game. Somebody who is religious in this metaphor is taking the Sudoku book and draw pictures all over it. Continuing the number pattern in sudoku is a game like flowing patterns in the universe is what the game of science is about. Drawing in the Sudoku book also a game, there does however remain multiple fundamental difference in type of game that is being played.
I mean no offence, although drawing and playing sudoku are not equivalent activities they are both equally meaningless and people who prefer to draw should probably draw.
Sorry my last e-mail was rude, no excuses but i was in a bad mood when i wrote it. I am not general quite so obnoxious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 16, 2020 21:03:04 GMT
These are all topics of conversation religious people what rather be talking about, instead of presenting any evidence for the existence of god. When you arguing science can't prove what i believe isn't true then you pause and talk a long hard look at what you believe. You are calming a false equivalency between scientific belief and religious belief. You are doing this because by doing this you can justify believing what you what. This is as wrong, as is the suggestion that if science can't disprove something then believing in it is perfectly rational. To take sudoku as a metaphor. In this metaphor the scantiest is somebody who takes time to understand the patterns between the numbers and adds numbers into the blanks that fit with those patterns and rejecting numbers that don't fit with the self apparent rules of the game. Somebody who is religious in this metaphor is taking the Sudoku book and draw pictures all over it. Continuing the number pattern in sudoku is a game like flowing patterns in the universe is what the game of science is about. Drawing in the Sudoku book also a game, there does however remain multiple fundamental difference in type of game that is being played. I mean no offence, although drawing and playing sudoku are not equivalent activities they are both equally meaningless and people who prefer to draw should probably draw. Sorry my last e-mail was rude, no excuses but i was in a bad mood when i wrote it. I am not general quite so obnoxious. A little off topic here but technically drawing isn't always meaningless. People can make tons of money as artists and a lot of paintings by famous artists sell for a fortune. Also, since we're talking science in a religious category...what do you think about why we are the center of the universe? (If unsure what I mean you can google axis of evil for example). Like why does everything revolve around us? Why the heck for? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 16, 2020 21:19:51 GMT
These are all topics of conversation religious people what rather be talking about, instead of presenting any evidence for the existence of god. When you arguing science can't prove what i believe isn't true then you pause and talk a long hard look at what you believe. You are calming a false equivalency between scientific belief and religious belief. You are doing this because by doing this you can justify believing what you what. This is as wrong, as is the suggestion that if science can't disprove something then believing in it is perfectly rational. To take sudoku as a metaphor. In this metaphor the scantiest is somebody who takes time to understand the patterns between the numbers and adds numbers into the blanks that fit with those patterns and rejecting numbers that don't fit with the self apparent rules of the game. Somebody who is religious in this metaphor is taking the Sudoku book and draw pictures all over it. Continuing the number pattern in sudoku is a game like flowing patterns in the universe is what the game of science is about. Drawing in the Sudoku book also a game, there does however remain multiple fundamental difference in type of game that is being played. I mean no offence, although drawing and playing sudoku are not equivalent activities they are both equally meaningless and people who prefer to draw should probably draw. Sorry my last e-mail was rude, no excuses but i was in a bad mood when i wrote it. I am not general quite so obnoxious. :) Surely, no hard feeling! Actually, I got no offense. I take a dialogue between religion and science to be important, because I was atheist, and turn to Christianity. I read lot of even more non-pleasant things of Christianity like K. Deschner's "Christianity Criminal History" or some others like Ranovich's works on Christianity, etc. Also I'm familiar with many arguments of Dawkins or other scientists about Physics barriers to claim about Christianity, and some metaphysical works (=conceptual prism) that just as a system or kinda Christianity has its flaws. But being honestly it doesn't sound persuasive for me, because I don't like how any arguments are spelled. I mean it isn't the problem between Christians and Atheists, but something aside. Well, I mean there's nothing bad in two people with pretty different views and even conceptual schemes to speak with each other. Any spare obstacles - any third elements - are just barring their conversation. So, it's more cool that even two different people with complete different views can speak with each other pleasantly and peaceful. Your example with Sudoku - is really impressive. Honestly. I think this is the best explanation of probability-type of science. No doubt that science is something like this, but at the same time it has axioms, and it has something like building its systems using specific languages - shortly - by developing their systems with some languages they also take all those flaws that the tools (=languages) have. Or, in other words, currently this science is not the limit and the absolute truth; the process is still going. No science can claim anything with precise certainty about anything, but not because of their incompetence in using tools or something (actually, they've mastered using tools the best of the rest institutions and other human practices), but because of their ethical and social roles. Let's just say, there are plenty of politics behind science now, and it's not really good. Yes, religion has amount of flaws. I guess it's rational to doubt many religion's truths. On the other hand, no one knows whether or not getting truth closer we do get it closer? I mean anything can be deceptive; just believing to eyes, ears, nose, and skin don't seem to be enough and complete knowledge. I guess that day by day I'm about to take weird-realism by Gram Harman. Or, I should say, closer to Lovecraftian type of realism when we don't need to stick on a person's limitness. I guess Lovecraft was right saying that a human mind was too limited to understand many mysteries of the universe. There are plenty of things which cannot be taken neither by science, nor by common religion. |
|
|
|
Post by restitutor on Nov 17, 2020 8:16:48 GMT
Hi
You are far kinder to me than I deserve and I do appreciate it.
I think we have been on journeys in different directions, I used to be religious but I just stopped believing one day. I am actually quite pro religion and freely admit that I preferred having faith than not having faith. I support my wife in her faith by going to church with her most weeks. The fact that all the people i love most in the world are religious means i don’t talk about what i believe with them which is difficult for me and is essentially why I joined this community.
I have spent 25 years trying to get as close to true as possible and I have come to believe it is useful to think in terms of models. A model is simply where you label things according to their properties and then look for rules that govern their interaction and then you use the model to make well grounded predictions, like sudoku.
I would argue that the reality our brain generates fulfills all the requirements of a model and that this is indeed a useful way of understanding what our mind is. Our “reality model” is compelling, we get to experience it in a way that feels first hand and it comes complete with a choice of pleasant narratives that you can explain your existence in terms of. The problem with our reality model is that there is good reason to think that it is extremely distorted in very important ways by a multitude of evolutionary imperatives. We spend a lot of calories generating our reality model and the reason why is likely that it’s evolutionarily beneficial for us to be able to model out an action before taking the action
People say that all models are wrong, but some models are useful. This witasisem notwithstanding, the fact that certain “scientific” models are very good at predicting things that are subsequently proven correct suggests they are highlighting an underlying truth. E=MC2 was strongly suggested to represent an underlying truth by the advent of the atom bomb which turned a relatively small amount of M (mass) into quite a lot of E (energy). It is worth noting that this equation didn’t just say energy and mass were exchangeable, it accurately predicted how much E would be exchanged for how much M.
I believe that this kind of well proven model is as close as well can get to actual “truth”. The first problem is that nobody has taken time to stitch together enough “scientific models” to generate a narrative that we can see ourselves in. You can have all the truth you want but without a narrative we will never be able to see ourselves in that truth. The second problem is that any truth we find is liable to get distorted as we perceive it because we necessarily perceive that truth through our discredited reality model. We can solve the first problem with work and we can move closer towards solving the second problem by practicing abstract thought.
Given these beliefs it probably wouldn’t surprise you to find out I spend a portion of most weeks trying to stitch scientific models into a cohesive narrative and practicing abstract thought.
I am not well read enough in philosophy (I read mostly science) to be able to place what I believe in proper context. The only real parallel I have come across is Epicuriouse who tuck Democrtuses belief in a little something called the atom (meaning uncuttable in greak) and extrapolate it out into a whole system of thought, but as i say, i am not very well read at all when it comes to philosophy.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2020 11:44:46 GMT
restitutor . Why don't you deserve? I'd say that sometimes it happens that people with strictly opposite view get along with each other much more than with their co-believers or co-thinkers. (By the way, if you want to notify your answer you can either tap 'quote', or use an icon with '@' on a panel above, and then to write a name of a member you need to notify.) I apologize that I can't answer right now – I'm quite busy these days. I would answer briefly, however I'd better think about it a little more. At first sight, I can say that it's obvious that your thoughts are indeed deeply on these subjects. Honestly, I don't know science well or so good enough to start arguing about it with no responsibility. I mean i have to be responsible for it facing the science – all that hard work of centuries of many scientists during the history. Quick claiming local decisions like about the mechanisms we've aquaired during the evolution wouldn't be good from my sidr, because, I presume, to know which ways we go to get these or those abilities – it seems to understand (more or less) what purpose that form of life we call as a human has? – If to give a really brief answer that comes to my mind firstly is – to adopt to the universe. But also there's another problem appears: do we differ from the rest of reality and how? I mean – why to adopt instead of experiencing everything like comets on their ways? About the models. This problem isn't well studied by me, but I have taken some info about the models or modeling, i.e. viewing the different models in science to study something with them. I mean mostly our reality os a product or a sum of facts thay have been achieved by analysing models. The models have math, semantical, ontological and metaphycisal sides, and each of them has its own pros amd cons. Surely, that no matter how bad any model is – this way is much powerful than any other ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by restitutor on Nov 19, 2020 4:05:25 GMT
These are all topics of conversation religious people what rather be talking about, instead of presenting any evidence for the existence of god. When you arguing science can't prove what i believe isn't true then you pause and talk a long hard look at what you believe. You are calming a false equivalency between scientific belief and religious belief. You are doing this because by doing this you can justify believing what you what. This is as wrong, as is the suggestion that if science can't disprove something then believing in it is perfectly rational. To take sudoku as a metaphor. In this metaphor the scantiest is somebody who takes time to understand the patterns between the numbers and adds numbers into the blanks that fit with those patterns and rejecting numbers that don't fit with the self apparent rules of the game. Somebody who is religious in this metaphor is taking the Sudoku book and draw pictures all over it. Continuing the number pattern in sudoku is a game like flowing patterns in the universe is what the game of science is about. Drawing in the Sudoku book also a game, there does however remain multiple fundamental difference in type of game that is being played. I mean no offence, although drawing and playing sudoku are not equivalent activities they are both equally meaningless and people who prefer to draw should probably draw. Sorry my last e-mail was rude, no excuses but i was in a bad mood when i wrote it. I am not general quite so obnoxious. A little off topic here but technically drawing isn't always meaningless. People can make tons of money as artists and a lot of paintings by famous artists sell for a fortune. Also, since we're talking science in a religious category...what do you think about why we are the center of the universe? (If unsure what I mean you can google axis of evil for example). Like why does everything revolve around us? Why the heck for?
You of course realize that I was using drawing as a metaphor. I don't regard drawing as being any more meaningless than anything else, charcoal is my preferred medium. I hadn't heard about the axis of evil until you mentioned it. i watched this youtube video which i liked. Guy seemed knowledgeable and reasonable. He seemed to think it was genuinely weird and worth thinking about but really too early to tell what it actually means. I would not bet on it proving the existence of god. By the way, how did you become royalty, I have never conversed with a Queen before?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 19, 2020 5:51:06 GMT
A little off topic here but technically drawing isn't always meaningless. People can make tons of money as artists and a lot of paintings by famous artists sell for a fortune. Also, since we're talking science in a religious category...what do you think about why we are the center of the universe? (If unsure what I mean you can google axis of evil for example). Like why does everything revolve around us? Why the heck for? You of course realize that I was using drawing as a metaphor. I don't regard drawing as being any more meaningless than anything else, charcoal is my preferred medium. I hadn't heard about the axis of evil until you mentioned it. i watched this youtube video which i liked. Guy seemed knowledgeable and reasonable. He seemed to think it was genuinely weird and worth thinking about but really too early to tell what it actually means. I would not bet on it proving the existence of god. By the way, how did you become royalty, I have never conversed with a Queen before? Oh, I only brought up drawing because you said it was meaningless but it can make someone rich so mostly at that time it's not so meaningless. But yes I understood what you meant. Sodoku is also a fun game that I play but haven't heard anything about it making someone rich yet unfortunately so there wasn't anything for me to add there to your writing. And I wasn't trying to say that the axis of evil proved anything but since topic went to science, I was just trying to see what others thought about this crazy thing regardless of their religion or lack of one. He also did a good job trying to explain it in your video but it also seemed brief and I thought he missed several things by just mentioning a few things. Personally, one of my favorite videos on this is this one... Originally, I had a different title but it confused people. The reason is because this forum was created by one person and is run by another so people kept assuming it was one and the same person. But my tech skills are just barely good enough to run the forum though I still get help. Then people started saying queen more and my username is a name of a queen and my dna ancestry test was tied to a king so the queen title just stuck...  |
|
