What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[PeterMP]

49 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So the burden of proof in a discussion about the existence of god does not fall to the one arguing the claim of god's existence? I'm not sure you understand how this thing works.

 

Other than basic math, a burden of proof in any discussion is ridiculous (and insurmountable).

 

A logical frame work for belief in god is certainly attainable.

 

Do you believe in free will?

 

Do you believe that the past predicts the future?

 

Do you believe that tomorrow will the universe will resemble today?

 

These are things that we lack good (scientific) explanations for and living your life believing these things with no reason is not very logical.

 

(And if you reject them, I'm not sure how/why having any discussion, much less a discussion about the existence of a god makes much sense.)

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

These are things that we lack good (scientific) explanations for and living your life believing these things with no reason is not very logical.

 

A God of the Gaps argument isn’t very logical either.

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

A God of the Gaps argument isn’t very logical either.

 

Why not?

 

The idea that God reveals himself through nature is very old and pre-dates western science and organized science and even gave rise to the existence of western and organized science.

@No Excuses

 

I guess you see a God of the gaps as a God of the gaps in science.  I see a God of the gaps as a God that reveals himself in the gaps between where science can take us and what our concousness tells us.

 

I see the gap between what we believe and what science fundamentally is and can do.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why not?

 

The idea that God reveals himself through nature is very old and pre-dates western science and organized science and even gave rise to the existence of western and organized science.

 

It fundamentally does not tell you anything, except assigning your gaps in knowledge to an unknown entity. An argument that weakens over time as our gaps in knowledge are filled isn’t logical or useful.

 

That some of the early founders of the scientific method were religious has no bearing on the validity of their beliefs.

 

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

It fundamentally does not tell you anything, except assigning your gaps in knowledge to an unknown entity. An argument that weakens over time as our gaps in knowledge are filled isn’t logical or useful.

 

That some of the early founders of the scientific method were religious has no bearing on the validity of their beliefs.

 

 

I edited.  I think you see a god of the gaps as a god of the gaps in science.  I see a god of the gaps as in the gaps between what science is and can fundamentally tell us and what we believe in and of ourselves.  And as such, it isn't an argument that weakens over time.  It is an argument that strengthens over time with every day the universe is the same as the way as it was the day before and that the present (at least appears) to have been predicted by the past.

 

A fundamental tenant of science is that ideas that make correct predictions are more iikely to be true than ideas that do not.

 

Why would you reject that idea when searching for a belief system that extends beyond science?

 

You have a belief, that science is useful in predicting the future.  That our senses and brains can be used to understand the universe.

 

Yet, you have no fundamental reason to believe those things are true.  Science cannot provide evidence those things are true.

 

You have a gap.  Based on ideas that are used in science (e.g. ideas that make good predictions are more likely to be correct), God, better than any other idea I know of, fills that gap.  

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[AsburySkinsFan]

48 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I never claimed god existed, I said that your evidence against a god (an assumption that the universe can be explained without a god) is flawed.

Don't believe my question was addressed to you

[No Excuses]

Just now, PeterMP said:

A fundamental tenant of science is that ideas that make correct predictions are more iikely to be true than ideas that do not.

 

Why would you reject that idea when searching for a belief system that extends beyond science?

 

What correct prediction are you making? That God is the answer to the problem of induction when it comes to uniformity of natural laws? That is not a prediction. It is an assumption that is not backed by anything but your personal beliefs.

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Interestingly, (and apparently different than you) I've never felt the burden of proof is on me.  Other than basic math, I'll actively reject any burden of proof in any discussion.

You actively reject any burden of proof in any discussion? That’s quite the cop out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Other than basic math, a burden of proof in any discussion is ridiculous (and insurmountable).

 

A logical frame work for belief in god is certainly attainable.

 

Do you believe in free will?

 

Do you believe that the past predicts the future?

 

Do you believe that tomorrow will the universe will resemble today?

 

These are things that we lack good (scientific) explanations for and living your life believing these things with no reason is not very logical.

 

(And if you reject them, I'm not sure how/why having any discussion, much less a discussion about the existence of a god makes much sense.)

And the theologically trained mind simply fills in the gaps of human knowledge with "god". Except when those gaps are pushed back then god gets smaller. Come on man, you know me. I know the arguments and I know st the end of the day the best apologetics can do is argue for a first mover, all the rest is doctrinal leaps. 

 

Can't explain it? God

Can explain it? God

Except all of those are faith commitments not a basis of fact.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I never claimed god existed, I said that your evidence against a god (an assumption that the universe can be explained without a god) is flawed.

No, it isn’t. This is the weakest argument.

 

”Something amazing that we don’t fully understand must have come from God... who is even more amazing... and who we don’t understand... and whose existence I also can’t explain.”

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No, it isn’t. This is the weakest argument.

 

”Something amazing that we don’t fully understand must have come from God... who is even more amazing... and who we don’t understand... and whose existence I also can’t explain.”

And then when the science of the gap is explained the response is, "See how amazing god is, look what he ordered the world." This IS the definition of a presupposition in an argument, god is presumed therefore god IS the answer...to every question.  

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

What correct prediction are you making? That God is the answer to the problem of induction when it comes to uniformity of natural laws? That is not a prediction. It is an assumption that is not backed by anything but your personal beliefs.

 

 

I'm predicting that tomorrow will appear to be the same as today.  I'm predicting that using our natural senses and brains we will continue to at least appear to be uncovering how the universe and nature works.  I'm predicting that the universe at least appears to us to be heavily probabilistic (not strictly deterministic) in nature.

 

Again, the fact that the predictions (though not the last one to my knowledge) were made (before the creation of western science and organized science) and have repeatably been found to be true is evidence for ideas that predicted them being correct.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No, it isn’t. This is the weakest argument.

 

”Something amazing that we don’t fully understand must have come from God... who is even more amazing... and who we don’t understand... and whose existence I also can’t explain.”

 

This is how advancing knowledge works and has worked in every field, including science.  If you have something you can't explain, you come up with an explanation.  Whether the explanation can be explained is irrelevant.

 

Darwin came up with an explanation for the diversity of life we see (natural selection) and it was largely accepted even though there was no real explanation of how natural selection happened (e.g. there was no understanding of DNA and inherentence of traits).

 

If we stopped science every time somebody proposed something that was based on something "more amazing" that at the time can't be explained (at the time), scientific progress would have ended a long time ago.

 

The same general principle applies to all advancements in knowledge/understanding.

 

We have things that we believe and at least appear to observe.  We can either throw up our hands and say we don't know.  Or we can propose possible explanations.

 

One approach is illogical and the anti-thesis of science.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

This is how advancing knowledge works and has worked in every field, including science.  If you have something you can't explain, you come up with an explanation.  Whether the explanation can be explained is irrelevant.

Yes, well the explanation in question is self-defeating.

 

Person 1: Something amazing can’t just come from nothing. Therefore, God.

 

Person 2: Well where did God come from then?

 

Person 1: ....

Edited April 17, 2019 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[No Excuses]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm predicting that tomorrow will appear to be the same as today.  I'm predicting that using our natural senses and brains we will continue to at least appear to be uncovering how the universe and nature works.  I'm predicting that the universe at least appears to us to be heavily probabilistic (not strictly deterministic) in nature.

 

Again, the fact that the predictions (though not the last one to my knowledge) were made (before the creation of western science and organized science) and have repeatably been found to be true is evidence for ideas that predicted them being correct.

 

This is quite the low bar. There is nothing particularly insightful about the existence of God that you can draw from being able to make predictions about the future based on past experience (i.e. natural laws remained uniform in my past experience and will thus continue to do so into my future). Multiple human cultures have come to believe this in some capacity, independent of each other, and with wildly different ideas about why this is the case.

 

I don't know in which philosophical circles God is introduced as an answer to the Problem of Induction but it is beyond lazy and really not insightful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't even cover this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[PleaseBlitz]

15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This is how advancing knowledge works and has worked in every field, including science.  If you have something you can't explain, you come up with an explanation.  Whether the explanation can be explained is irrelevant.

 

 

 

This is ridiculous.  I think you are confusing "whether the explanation can be proven" with "whether the explanation can be explained."  

 

 

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Other than basic math, a burden of proof in any discussion is ridiculous (and insurmountable).

 

I don't believe you actually believe this yourself, especially as a scientist.

 

If I suggest that a teapot between Mars and Earth is orbiting the Sun, I can't duck behind this ridiculous assumption that a burden of proof for my claim doesn't exist because this isn't a problem of "basic math".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

Quote

 

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.^[2]

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm predicting that tomorrow will appear to be the same as today.  I'm predicting that using our natural senses and brains we will continue to at least appear to be uncovering how the universe and nature works.  I'm predicting that the universe at least appears to us to be heavily probabilistic (not strictly deterministic) in nature.

 

Again, the fact that the predictions (though not the last one to my knowledge) were made (before the creation of western science and organized science) and have repeatably been found to be true is evidence for ideas that predicted them being correct.

So your argument is that science is irrelevant because a caveman pulled a "Little Orphan Annie"?

[LD0506]

 

[Fresh8686]

I'd say a burden of absolute proof is ridiculous and insurmountable. You're not going to get absolute certainty, there is always going to be a gap, because the gap is part of the design. It provides combustion, impetus, conatus, etc. which compels movement.

People talk about the first mover, or what moved what first, but what if it was the very inherent incompleteness that self-compelled movement? It's why we move. To fill the void, whether it be a void to fill with air for our lungs, food for our stomach, meaning for our mind, or connection for our heart and soul.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

I don't believe you actually believe this yourself, especially as a scientist.

 

If I suggest that a teapot between Mars and Earth is orbiting the Sun, I can't duck behind this ridiculous assumption that a burden of proof for my claim doesn't exist because this isn't a problem of "basic math".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

 

 

I believe it especially as a scientist.

 

p-values are p-values for a reason.  P is for probability.  Not proof.

 

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

This is ridiculous.  I think you are confusing "whether the explanation can be proven" with "whether the explanation can be explained."  

 

 

 

History is full of people objecting to an idea because it can't be explained, and them being wrong.

 

Even today, we can't explain why the Schrodinger equation seems to be true.  The idea that the continents were once all joined was rejected for a long time because how they came apart or how they were together could not be explained.  The worse mistakes in science have been made when an idea that explained existing evidence was rejected because the idea couldn't be explained (i.e. the explanation couldn't be explained).

 

That an explanation can't be explained is not good evidence that the explanation is not true.

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So your argument is that science is irrelevant because a caveman pulled a "Little Orphan Annie"?

 

I've never said anything remotely like science is irrelevant.  It is limited.

 

And I have no idea what you are trying to say anyway.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

History is full of people objecting to an idea because it can't be explained, and them being wrong.

 

Even today, we can't explain why the Schrodinger equation seems to be true.  The idea that the continents were once all joined was rejected for a long time because how they came apart or how they were together could not be explained.  The worse mistakes in science have been made when an idea that explained existing evidence was rejected because the idea couldn't be explained (i.e. the explanation couldn't be explained).

 

That an explanation can't be explained is not good evidence that the explanation is not true.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is quite the low bar. There is nothing particularly insightful about the existence of God that you can draw from being able to make predictions about the future based on past experience (i.e. natural laws remained uniform in my past experience and will thus continue to do so into my future). Multiple human cultures have come to believe this in some capacity, independent of each other, and with wildly different ideas about why this is the case.

 

I don't know in which philosophical circles God is introduced as an answer to the Problem of Induction but it is beyond lazy and really not insightful. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't even cover this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

 

That it is not discussed elsewhere is irrelevant.  Whether it is or not insightful is also not evidence that it isn't true.

 

The fact of the matter is that you believe something that you have no real reason to believe (i.e. that science has and will continue to work).

 

Given that seeking an explanation is a reasonable and logical (and even scientific) thing to do.  And then using ideas from science (ideas that make predictions are most likely true) is a logical way to precede.

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

 

 

That's not the same point you made before.  I've never claimed that a god is the only explanation.  To me, a god is the best explanation.  But I am happy to explore some with you.

 

What explanations do you have?

 

What predictions do those explanations make?

 

What other evidence do you have that those explanations might be correct?

 

How does that fit in with what we've observed?

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Okay.

 

What explanations do you have?

 

I don't have any explanations, and I also understand that not having an explanation does not mean that "God" must fill that space, or "magic" or "aliens" or anything else.  Things happen for a reason, sometimes we don't understand the reason, an all-powerful yet invisible deity with specific rules that everyone disagrees about is probably not the reason.  

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I don't have any explanations, and I also understand that not having an explanation does not mean that "God" must fill that space, or "magic" or "aliens" or anything else.  Things happen for a reason, sometimes we don't understand the reason, an all-powerful yet invisible deity with specific rules that everyone disagrees about is probably not the reason.  

 

But that's very different then the movie clip you posted.  He has explanations.

 

The point made in your movie quote is not valid if you are not going to offer any other explanations.

 

I don't find it very reasonable or logical to live your life based on assumptions that you have no reason to believe are true.

 

And in general, to me, that attitude is the antithesis of science and the advancement of knowledge.  Knowledge advances by seeking out explanations and testing them to the best of our ability.

@PleaseBlitz

 

You've not very quickly moved through 3 different arguments.  Doesn't that bother you?

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP