- Status
1=0 because I say so??? As you point out 'because I say so' is the end to all debate and reason. Also I don't think you are being petulant as you remain prepared to engage in debate and not just preach.
The scientific method is not about truth or proof. Why? because the method can never hope to achieve either. Scientific method is about chipping away at ignorance. A bright light that exposes what we can establish as incorrect. At its best the scientific method leaves very little room for ignorance and alternatives. What then happens is that the bright light of experiment is focused ever more strongly on the reducing domain of ignorance. This approach can never discover everything and is restricted to the domain of what is physically discoverable. Nevertheless in those areas it is King. Which is why I have objected to pseudo-science when it crops up and to poor math and general misunderstanding of statistics that are present in this thread (and others) .
I think this is more about me not expressing myself very clearly rather than a fundamental difference on opinion between us, and is totally my fault, so I'm going to try to be clearer.
Do I believe that you can have an arbitrary faith regarding just about anything? Yeah, I think it is possible to have completely random beliefs. So someone can assert 1 = 0 using the symbols to mean what you would expect them to mean (of course in some contexts, that equation is completely correct mathematically).
However, what can you do with such a faith? As NoPoke pointed out, not much. So yeah, you can have such a faith, but there are good reasons not to.
When you try to analyse the reasons why such a faith is nonsensical, you quite quickly come across some sort of concept of consistency. What do I mean by this? Say you had the faith that 1 = 0. But then, all of mathematics falls flat. So you can't count, because that makes no sense. You can't use money. You wouldn't be able to use any machinery, etc., etc.
If you think that the faith is causing an inconsistency with your need to be able to use maths, then one or other has to go. Most people would choose the maths. Kidding - I'm guessing you would agree that the faith has to go.
You can either start with a set of ground rules - some axioms - and try to build up from there. Or you can keep an open mind, and experiment a little, asking yourself at each step whether that is something you would consider reasonable. But, if you use either approach to shape your world view, then you're probably going to run into some philosophical trouble - that was the point of my previous posts. You can't definitively use empirical reasoning in this way. And using an axiomatic approach relies very heavily on what your starting assumptions are. Each will be open to criticism.
Given all of that, how do you come to any sort of conclusions? You can either:
- Slog on with studying and try to find the answers. Remarkably, we have made some amazing discoveries in all areas of study (not just science), and it's got to the point where a lot of people believe that you can find the answers if you look hard enough (remember the objections to this approach still stand, at least in my eyes - we will never be able to find all the answers), or
- Take a leap of faith in anything that cannot be covered by the above.
What's amazing is that it is possible to take leaps of faith and suddenly everything makes sense. P_A is very content with his Chrisitan beliefs, and I am with mine. But I can't pretend that my beliefs are OK for everyone - I doubt P_A is looking to convert to my religion, for instance.
That's what I meant about it being possible to have two people, with differing faiths, but both of them entirely content with their world view and convinced that its consistent with all other knowledge they've encountered. Once you've gone through this entire process, if you disagree with someone's faith, you just have to agree to disagree. Saying 'I said so!' is completely valid, at least in this context.
Box of Fail
New Member
The problem with disproving God? You can't.
I don't believe in God but it's a personal choice, not one made on some sort of evidence. Although Christians will claim phenomena such as Jesus's ressurection and Constantine's burning cross as 'hard proof' of God's existence, there is no proof of those either. However, anybody claiming to be able to disprove the existence of a God is just stupid. The unwinnable argument is that 'God made things above our level or comprehension, which is why we don't understand [contradiction is bible or inexplicable aspect of God, such as how he got there in the first place]'. That argument is literally impossible to beat. Plus, people claiming that just because one cannot see proof of God means he does not exist are crazy. There is no solid evidence, for example, that Pluto is made of rock, only estimations made by scientists. There is no solid evidence explaining black holes nor dark matter, yet people believe in them.
You cannot prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't either.
Were I a Christian, the most rational argument for why God has not proven his existence would be that he is testing the faith of his subjects, and only the worthy who believe in God even without solid evidence deserve salvation for their faith.
But of course, I'm atheist, so I just think this is all a load of nonsense invented by humans.
I don't believe in God but it's a personal choice, not one made on some sort of evidence. Although Christians will claim phenomena such as Jesus's ressurection and Constantine's burning cross as 'hard proof' of God's existence, there is no proof of those either. However, anybody claiming to be able to disprove the existence of a God is just stupid. The unwinnable argument is that 'God made things above our level or comprehension, which is why we don't understand [contradiction is bible or inexplicable aspect of God, such as how he got there in the first place]'. That argument is literally impossible to beat. Plus, people claiming that just because one cannot see proof of God means he does not exist are crazy. There is no solid evidence, for example, that Pluto is made of rock, only estimations made by scientists. There is no solid evidence explaining black holes nor dark matter, yet people believe in them.
You cannot prove God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't either.
Were I a Christian, the most rational argument for why God has not proven his existence would be that he is testing the faith of his subjects, and only the worthy who believe in God even without solid evidence deserve salvation for their faith.
But of course, I'm atheist, so I just think this is all a load of nonsense invented by humans.
Benzo
Front Page News Editor<br>Forum Moderator
^ I have been re-reading through this thread, and was about to post and bring this thread back to the "top" of the threads, but ya beat me too it!
I have run into so many christans and from different set of Orginized religions, and they all seem to be seet and stubborn in their beliefs. It appears to me that they habg on to their beliefs because someone has told them that they need to believe it because "(insert your choice of word as to the source) says so, that's why."
If you dedicate your life to God, why still follow under the direction of man? I can see having fellow man there to support you or help you think/reason to have a second oppinion, but if you belong to God through your dedication, why answer to man?
If the religion has the "truth"- why do they still persue that religion if the truth never changes?
If God does exist, why do we need others to prve it to us when God can prove himself to you FOR Himself if you seek/sought Him out?
Ask any person of an orginized religion a real tough question, expect that the answer they give will be generic, and if you do not accept the answer they have given you, then they ignore you do to the fact that they are puffed up with pride in that they have the truth, and you don't , and that they are better then you.
So, through all of this very informal thread, I can find some great points. And I have a different way of looking at things, especaily agianst/ not in favor of orginized religion, for it fails in the aspect of "That is what the Bible says",
math in that it has to be narrowed down to the bazillianth in order for it to happen,
evolution is to slow and boring, and the only big bang for me is the one that I will experiance when another planet will collide into ours.
Also, for math, it is solid in figuering out possabilities, but if it constipates the mind, hopefully you can work it out with a pencil.
God rules- (and that is for all yall to answer for oneself)
I am done with this thread for now, but I hope later on in the future that this will come up agian with some other interesting things/points of view.
I commend those who are faithful to their beliefs and live by the morals they choose to have in that it is in hopes of a great life for them.
Kenneth- aka- Benzo
I have run into so many christans and from different set of Orginized religions, and they all seem to be seet and stubborn in their beliefs. It appears to me that they habg on to their beliefs because someone has told them that they need to believe it because "(insert your choice of word as to the source) says so, that's why."
If you dedicate your life to God, why still follow under the direction of man? I can see having fellow man there to support you or help you think/reason to have a second oppinion, but if you belong to God through your dedication, why answer to man?
If the religion has the "truth"- why do they still persue that religion if the truth never changes?
If God does exist, why do we need others to prve it to us when God can prove himself to you FOR Himself if you seek/sought Him out?
Ask any person of an orginized religion a real tough question, expect that the answer they give will be generic, and if you do not accept the answer they have given you, then they ignore you do to the fact that they are puffed up with pride in that they have the truth, and you don't , and that they are better then you.
So, through all of this very informal thread, I can find some great points. And I have a different way of looking at things, especaily agianst/ not in favor of orginized religion, for it fails in the aspect of "That is what the Bible says",
math in that it has to be narrowed down to the bazillianth in order for it to happen,
evolution is to slow and boring, and the only big bang for me is the one that I will experiance when another planet will collide into ours.
Also, for math, it is solid in figuering out possabilities, but if it constipates the mind, hopefully you can work it out with a pencil.
God rules- (and that is for all yall to answer for oneself)
I am done with this thread for now, but I hope later on in the future that this will come up agian with some other interesting things/points of view.
I commend those who are faithful to their beliefs and live by the morals they choose to have in that it is in hopes of a great life for them.
Kenneth- aka- Benzo
Last edited:
goldberg123
New Member
I do believe tht we go somewhere after we leave life on earth. but i dont believe tht one man can depend on everyones life and know wut they do and say everyday. how can he be at every single persons side and know wut they say and do 24/7. every1 talks around the same time on earth so how can he here the billions and billions of people and know exactly what every single person has said and done.
Sir Bidoof
New Member
You are assuming that there is a thing as a life force. I don't think we believe in that.
---------- Post added 07/08/2010 at 12:35 PM ----------
Dreams are only necessary for creatures with a relatively complex brain, just to keep in functioning during sleep. Therefore, it would not of evolved until the brain evolved, and probably came as a side affect of having a brain.
Dogma-The contradiction in a fully benevolent all powerful god allowing evil is simply, why would he allow evil if he is fully good and can do anything. The only two logical conclusions are
1- He can't get rid of evil, in which case he is not all powerful.
2- He does not want to get rid of evil, in which case is is not fully benevolent.
Last edited:
Box of Fail
New Member
Wait who said God was infinitely benevolent? He's just forgiving to those who "see the light".
Huh? Why do people think you can disprove God?
Well I don't see why not.
Sir Bidoof
New Member
A lot of Christians give Benevolence as a trait of God, and many even say he is all good. This is what I'm referring to.
Box of Fail
New Member
They say he is willing to forgive those who honestly want to change their ways. There is a huge difference.
Does it say anything about the age of the earth then?
Sir Bidoof
New Member
The 6000 year old Earth was invented by people just adding up the ages of Adam and each of his descendants after him. It was not actually in the Bible.
Box of Fail
New Member
Let me ask you this then.
Why is the notion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old COMMON SENSE? Is it because you believe in the word of all the scientists who say so? That modern science cannot possibly be wrong?
Let me tell you one thing. You're wrong. Humanity has a constant habit of thinking it knows more than it does. Just because some scientists say something doesn't make it right, let alone common sense. Anything you cannot figure out on your own is not common sense - believing in something because others say it is true is the entire basis of religion.
- Status