Smart people don't believe in god...

[Rosbjerg]

It should also be pointed out, that using the argument Rosbjerg was toting, any schizophrenic's hallucinations are real.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes they are .. they are real to the person that sees them .. and that's whats important! you insist on drawing everything out into this common reality .. which you have no proof of .. just because it's not real to you does mean it's not there ..

I don't believe in your God, so I don't believe s/he exist .. but s/he does to you! and following your above point that makes God an illusion ..

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

yes they are .. they are real to the person that sees them .. and that's whats important! you insist on drawing everything out into this common reality .. which you have no proof of .. just because it's not real to you does mean it's not there ..

I don't believe in your God, so I don't believe s/he exist .. but s/he does to you! and following your above point that makes God an illusion ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your wrong.

 

If you want to confine yourself to your own reality then fine you can accept it as fact. If however you want to impress your reality on others, that takes proof or faith.

 

2+2=4 because that was proven to me and I dont have an alternative for it. "God" on the other hand is this variable that people adapt to suit their own purposes with no definitive answer. The big difference here is that regardless of what science discovered about human origin I would not be at all phased by it. It wouldnt matter if we were created by aliens in the shape of mice

 

If on the other hand someone came up with difinitive proof that we were a gentic experiment that would have devistating consequences on some people.

 

I always liken god to a cosmic parent. It might confort some people to cling to their parent while others have outgrown them and no longer fear the dark.

[Rosbjerg]

yes they are .. they are real to the person that sees them .. and that's whats important! you insist on drawing everything out into this common reality .. which you have no proof of .. just because it's not real to you does mean it's not there ..

I don't believe in your God, so I don't believe s/he exist .. but s/he does to you! and following your above point that makes God an illusion ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your wrong.

 

If you want to confine yourself to your own reality then fine you can accept it as fact. If however you want to impress your reality on others, that takes proof or faith.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

this is what I've been saying all along .. you've accepted the given fact 2+2=4 .. nothing wrong with that, because it makes sense, and if it fits into your reality then good! but you can' assume everyone sees, feels or believes this .. I've accepted the fact that Math works as well! and I do believe in science more than religion .. but I believe in it, I don't know it to be true!

 

and the reason why I'm arguing here is because someone stated that people who believe in God without proof is stupid .. While my opinion is, that everything you hold to be true is a matter of faith and not die hard proof.. so that would make everyone an idiot! and that's why I disagree with the original poster ..

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

this is what I've been saying all along .. you've accepted the given fact 2+2=4 .. nothing wrong with that, because it makes sense, and if it fits into your reality then good! but you can' assume everyone sees, feels or believes this .. I've accepted the fact that Math works as well! and I do believe in science more than religion .. but I believe in it, I don't know it to be true!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does anyone not believe that 2+2=4 ?

 

You dont need to believe in science. Science is just there. Even if you dont believe in gravity you still cant fly . You may have devices that can overcome it, but it's still a fundamental and provable truth.

[Rosbjerg]

this is what I've been saying all along .. you've accepted the given fact 2+2=4 .. nothing wrong with that, because it makes sense, and if it fits into your reality then good! but you can' assume everyone sees, feels or believes this .. I've accepted the fact that Math works as well! and I do believe in science more than religion .. but I believe in it, I don't know it to be true!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does anyone not believe that 2+2=4 ?

 

You dont need to believe in science. Science is just there. Even if you dont believe in gravity you still cant fly . You may have devices that can overcome it, but it's still a fundamental and provable truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not how science works .. science never proves anything to be true, I can only prove something wrong .. If I one day fly on my own accord, science will have to incorporate that, and probably will .. Science is fluid, that's it's strenght, it has the ability to adapt, which has made it quite popular .. but it's not solid fact, it's based on observations .. and until the day that we have seen, experianced and know everything .. science is fallible!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's not how science works .. science never proves anything to be true, I can only prove something wrong .. If I one day fly on my own accord, science will have to incorporate that, and probably will .. Science is fluid, that's it's strenght, it has the ability to adapt, which has made it quite popular .. but it's not solid fact, it's based on observations .. and until the day that we have seen, experianced and know everything .. science is fallible!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well your welcome to jump off your roof

 

Yes but when something new comes along science adapts with nary a miss step. The introduction of new concepts is something religion finds hard to impossible to deal with. In some cases it's like sticking your fingers in your ears in hopes that it will just go away.

[213374U]

2+2=4 because that was proven to me and I dont have an alternative for it. "God" on  the other hand is this variable that people adapt to suit their own purposes with no definitive answer. The big difference here is that regardless of what science discovered about human origin I would not be at all phased by it. It wouldnt matter if we were created by aliens in the shape of mice 

 

If on the other hand someone came up with difinitive proof that we were a gentic experiment that would have devistating consequences on some people.

The degree to what religion affects people is beside the point. We are not discussing that (not any longer, anyway). I think we can all agree that a lack of independent thought is bad, regardless of what causes it. The fact that some people instrumentalize the notion of God for whatever purposes is not a valid argument to counter the possibility that such God might indeed exist.

 

I don't believe in an "entity" that you can fathom as God. I think that is a simplification and a reminiscence of the old times. In my opinion it is just an easy way to answer the ultimate question: what is existance?

However I don't discard the possibility that there may be something *beyond* the physical world we can measure, and probably beyond the reality governed by logic. I guess that would make me something of a "mystical agnosticist".

[Rosbjerg]

That's not how science works .. science never proves anything to be true, I can only prove something wrong .. If I one day fly on my own accord, science will have to incorporate that, and probably will .. Science is fluid, that's it's strenght, it has the ability to adapt, which has made it quite popular .. but it's not solid fact, it's based on observations .. and until the day that we have seen, experianced and know everything .. science is fallible!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well your welcome to jump off your roof

 

Yes but when something new comes along science adapts with nary a miss step. The introduction of new concepts is something religion finds hard to impossible to deal with. In some cases it's like sticking your fingers in your ears in hopes that it will just go away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not doubting the fact that science is adaptable .. but my point, which I have stated several times now (sorry for being circular in my argument Eldar), is that it still requires belief in the new theories that arises .. they are not hard fact, you still need a degree faith! and religion may be stagnant compared to that .. but that does not make it worth any less .. it's just a different perspective! both are fallible in the big picture .. so in order to trust them, we must believe in them ..

 

my world view is wrong to some other people .. but right for me .. that doesn't mean I'm wrong, it doesn't mean the others are wrong .. it just means we see things differently!

[213374U]

I thought we had already agreed that science is independent from belief...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm not doubting the fact that science is adaptable .. but my point, which I have stated several times now (sorry for being circular in my argument Eldar), is that it still requires belief in the new theories that arises .. they are not hard fact, you still need a degree faith! and religion may be stagnant compared to that .. but that does not make it worth any less .. it's just a different perspective! both are fallible in the big picture .. so in order to trust them, we must believe in them ..

 

my world view is wrong to some other people .. but right for me .. that doesn't mean I'm wrong, it doesn't mean the others are wrong .. it just means we see things differently!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really. Science is about quantifiable answers not faith. In order to find an answer you first need to find the question.

 

Relativsm

[Rosbjerg]

I thought we had already agreed that science is independent from belief... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't .. I agree that within it's own system, science just is .. and when you view math within it's own seperate system it just is .. no proof required .. but if you try to apply it to the so called reality belief is required imo .. I don't doubt what I see .. because to me it's real .. but I doubt what I see if I must explain it in a context to what we percieve as a common reality ..

[213374U]

No. Science is within reality just as maths are within logic. After all, science is little more than maths applied to the real world.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. What is the belief you must accept in the case of science?

[Rosbjerg]

No. Science is within reality just as maths are within logic. After all, science is little more than maths applied to the real world.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. What is the belief you must accept in the case of science?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm going to repeat myself here .. sorry for that .. but it seems like I'm really bad at formulating myself ..

 

When I see a dog, I see what my minds interpret as a dog .. and so do you, if we are then to talk about this specific object, we must assume/believe that we are seeing the same thing .. so in our common reality, we have to believe that we are seeing the same thing in order to even have a converstation, otherwise we would need to explain our entire perspective each time we use a different symbol .. and since language is symbols as well.. you can see it would be quite impossible!

so I believe in reality, and our reality .. but I can't be sure that it's real, I only assume so ..

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When I see a dog, I see what my minds interpret as a dog .. and so do you, if we are then to talk about this specific object, we must assume/believe that we are seeing the same thing ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What happens when someone tells you a cat is a dog..

[SteveThaiBinh]

No. Science is within reality just as maths are within logic. After all, science is little more than maths applied to the real world.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. What is the belief you must accept in the case of science?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm going to repeat myself here .. sorry for that .. but it seems like I'm really bad at formulating myself ..

 

When I see a dog, I see what my minds interpret as a dog .. and so do you, if we are then to talk about this specific object, we must assume/believe that we are seeing the same thing .. so in our common reality, we have to believe that we are seeing the same thing in order to even have a converstation, otherwise we would need to explain our entire perspective each time we use a different symbol .. and since language is symbols as well.. you can see it would be quite impossible!

so I believe in reality, and our reality .. but I can't be sure that it's real, I only assume so ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You formulate your ideas fine, it's just a very worrying concept for our confident materialistic age. I often find philosophy wonderfully humbling, because it challenges us to question everything we assume that we know. Nevertheless, I believe (there's that word again!) that there is a difference between the belief needed to accept that this thing in front of me is in fact a dog, and belief/faith in a supernatural being.

[FaramirK]

there is a difference between the belief needed to accept that this thing in front of me is in fact a dog, and belief/faith in a supernatural being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but I disagree with the idea that if a person decides that what we call a dog is to him a cat, it is truely a cat in his reality. In fact, he is just ignorant, or suffering from a mental disorder. There has to be absolute truth, in my opinion.

[Rosbjerg]

there is a difference between the belief needed to accept that this thing in front of me is in fact a dog, and belief/faith in a supernatural being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but I disagree with the idea that if a person decides that what we call a dog is to him a cat, it is truely a cat in his reality. In fact, he is just ignorant, or suffering from a mental disorder. There has to be absolute truth, in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well what *is* that absolute thruth then? that the cat or dog exist? how do you know for 100% certainty? they are both a bunch of atoms fused togehter? 99% of the creature and everyting is in reality nothing .. is it based on what you see, hear or feel? if I strip away all your senses .. what is reality then??

[213374U]

well what *is* that absolute thruth then? that the cat or dog exist? how do you know for 100% certainty? they are both a bunch of atoms fused togehter? 99% of the creature and everyting is in reality nothing .. is it based on what you see, hear or feel? if I strip away all your senses .. what is reality then??

It does not really matter. The beauty of it is that, if you can express it in a set of equations, it's the same for you, me, your dog, or anything existing within the boundaries of the physical reality. It doesn't matter if what we are seeing or measuring isn't real, because science doesn't really deal with reality in a philosophical or transcendental sense. It just measures what is there, or what seems to be there, if you will.

 

I understand your point, though. If you question reality as the dimension we seem to exist in, then obviously science isn't infallible anymore, since the premises on which it is based are no longer necessarily true. But since science only deals with that "apparent" reality, claiming that science doesn't work if we change the framework is a moot point, really.

[Rosbjerg]

I understand your point, though. If you question reality as the dimension we seem to exist in, then obviously science isn't infallible anymore, since the premises on which it is based are no longer necessarily true. But since science only deals with that "apparent" reality, claiming that science doesn't work if we change the framework is a moot point, really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not saying it doesn't work .. but that you need to believe in the framwork, and in the apperant reality, for science to have any merit ..and this to me, is the same as believing in God (fundamentally) .. so it's not worthless or loses any value based on the fact that it is uncertain! it merly requires a leap of faith .. that's all I'm saying! that you shouldn't hold science as some sort of infallible entity, but regard it with a healthy degree of skepticism and see if it fits into your own world view!

[Cantousent]

I sympathize with you, Rosbjerg.  I just see your argument as circular.  There has to be some level on which folks of good "faith" can agree, regardless of their views on God.  We have to find at least one area upon which we agree if we're ever to isolate the areas where we disagree and the areas where agreement is impossible.

Hmm. Mathematics have nothing to do with that. They are not negotiable.

 

 

...But still, we must agree that it is non negotiable. The fact that we have been arguing over mathmatics shows that it is arguable. Is it rational to argue over mathmatics? Probably not, but if it is the most basic principle of our reality, then it doesn't hurt to get consensus and then move forward. Until then, we have absolutely no shared foundation for further discussion, only fuel for continued disagreement.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm not saying it doesn't work .. but that you need to believe in the framwork, and in the apperant reality, for science to have any merit ..and this to me, is the same as believing in God (fundamentally) .. so it's not worthless or loses any value based on the fact that it is uncertain! it merly requires a leap of faith .. that's all I'm saying! that you shouldn't hold science as some sort of infallible entity, but regard it with a healthy degree of skepticism and see if it fits into your own world view!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That depends if your world view is a view of the world as it is, or as you see it.

You can ignore the "reality" of science but science will win over your reality if you put it to the test. Like the aforementioned jumping off your roof.

 

People who are skeptical about the laws of physics and the like are likely to lead short and very messy lives.

[213374U]

No. There is no leap of faith in considering the perceived reality as a static environment with a fixed set of rules. Science proves that. It is a yes-no situation. If those rules weren't true, we wouldn't be able to decipher them through mathematics and/or they wouldn't be able to predict the behavior of the physical world.

 

Is the reality we perceive "real"? That is a whole different matter.

 

Of course all of that has nothing to do with the fact that science is constantly renewing itself. But since the establishing of the modern scientific method, few theories have been completely discarded (if any). What happens is that those theories are just expanded. Relativity hasn't rendered classic mechanics obsolete, for instance. It just explains other scenarios that weren't even considered by Newton.

[Cantousent]

The good thing about self evident reality as reality -- something like our mathmatics disctussion -- is that it is either completely true or so true that we have no choice but to accept it as bedrock of our existence. I can see exactly what you're saying Rosbjerg, but then we have every person in the discussion arguing for his version of reality.

 

For instance, might we be in some sort of Matrix? Sure. Nevertheless, if we are, then we are so completely fooled that the Matrix is our reality and we might as well argue from the rules that exist inside the matrix.

 

After all, could we live in a matrix built by computer in a world created by God.... and does God have a God who created him? It's just going to be awefully confusing in a short time.

[GarethCarrots]

if you take a different set of statistics, say a survey of the worlds best physicists, you will find that the majority believe in god....

[213374U]

...But still, we must agree that it is non negotiable.  The fact that we have been arguing over mathmatics shows that it is arguable.  Is it rational to argue over mathmatics?  Probably not, but if it is the most basic principle of our reality, then it doesn't hurt to get consensus and then move forward.  Until then, we have absolutely no shared foundation for further discussion, only fuel for continued disagreement.

I am not very fond of taking relativism to the extreme just for the sake of it. If we need to "agree" on certain things, we are effectively denying the existance of self-evident truths. I find it difficult and generally pointless to make conversation with people that like doing that. But then again, perhaps I'm just not as patient as you are.

 

After all, I'm the local forum cowboy.

 

 

For instance, might we be in some sort of Matrix?  Sure. Nevertheless, if we are, then we are so completely fooled that the Matrix is our reality and we might as well argue from the rules that exist inside the matrix.

My point exactly.