What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[DCSaints_fan]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

You missed point #1.  People like Aristotle were not scientists nor did science in the way we understand it today.  Aristotle was a natural philosopher who practiced pre or protoscience.  He did not carry out falsification of hypothesis through experiments.  That's the key to science.

 

Aristotle was a natural philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy) who observed and gathered, cataloged, and thought about information.

 

"From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred."

 

Would you consider Eratosthenes' calculation of the circumference of the Earth c. 250 B.C.  as "doing science" ?   If not, then why not? 

[Zguy28]

15 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Does Non-Monotheism not cover that? 

 

I didn't mean "we need another choice" but rather "when somebody chooses that one." I know that's what you meant.

4 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

Would you consider Eratosthenes' calculation of the circumference of the Earth c. 250 B.C.  as "doing science" ?   If not, then why not? 

Sounds more like Math than Scientific Method.

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Alright, I'm down with that. But was St. Augustine, then?

 

I'm not claiming that St. Augustine was a scientist.  I said there was no science when St. Augustine died, much less when he lived.  I'm saying that science grew out of his ideas.  I wouldn't even say St. Augustine was a natural philosopher.  He was a theologist and a general philosopher.

 

But people like Galieio were inspired by his ideas, and they created at least the first institutionalized/societal science (there might have been some one off individuals through out history that practiced science some, but those ideas and practices didn't spread from them (I'm walking back here a little because I don't like to talk in absolutes.  To say nobody ever in history did something one time is a big statement, but to my knowledge, there is no evidence of it being a central/regular component of somebody's processes.).

7 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

Would you consider Eratosthenes' calculation of the circumference of the Earth c. 250 B.C.  as "doing science" ?   If not, then why not? 

 

No because he did not carry out falsification of hypothesis through experiments (as I clearly already stated in why Aristotle wasn't a scientist).

 

It is a calculation.  The most complex geometry proof is not science.  Making star maps is not science.  Measuring distances between things is not science.  Observation and thought alone is not science.

 

The fundamental components of the scientific method is create a hypothesis, make a prediction from your hypothesis, test your hypothesis.

Edited April 5, 2018 by PeterMP

[DC9]

I believe in God.  I'm not a huge fan of organized religion. 

[Renegade7]

Not sure I agree with ya'lls definition of "science" right now.

[Going Commando]

On 4/3/2018 at 3:46 PM, PeterMP said:

Why do you live as if there are natural laws?

 

They are self-evident.  The existence of a logical, external, corporeal universe is self-evident.  We also have sufficient self-interest in believing in their existence--there wouldn't be a point in getting out of bed in the morning if we were solipsists who didn't believe in the existence of natural laws of physics.

[redskinss]

I said atheist but I guess I'm actually agnostic. 

Plus I like that word better. 

Atheism has become a word associated with the religion of believing there is no god when for me its not about religion its just about a total lack of proof or common sense. 

I always tell people that I'm not an atheist I'm nothing at all,  does not believing in dragons make me you anything? 

No? 

Then neither does not believing in god. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by redskinss

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not claiming that St. Augustine was a scientist.  I said there was no science when St. Augustine died, much less when he lived.  I'm saying that science grew out of his ideas.

Yeah but you said science started with him. He’s a contributor certainly but I don’t see how you could identify him as the catalyst.

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

They are self-evident.  The existence of a logical, external, corporeal universe is self-evident.  We also have sufficient self-interest in believing in their existence--there wouldn't be a point in getting out of bed in the morning if we were solipsists who didn't believe in the existence of natural laws of physics.

 

How are they self-evident?  Are they self-evident to everybody?

 

(I'm not quite sure you and I are actually talking about the same thing.  I can believe that the universe is real and not believe that tomorrow gravity will be the same as it is today.  I'd 100% disagree that the universe being logical is self-evident.  I don't find quantum mechanics very logical at all.)

 

"I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?" Werner Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy (1958)

 

"Then, unexpectedly, the third stage begins. The student suddenly says to himself, “I understand quantum mechanics,” or rather he says, “I understand now that there isn’t anything to be understood.” " Freeman Dyson

 

"Does it seem absurd? It also seemed absurd to Einstein. On one hand he proposed Heisenberg for the Noble Prize, recognizing that he had understood something fundamental to the world, while on the other hand he didn’t miss any occasion to grumble that this did not make much sense." Carlo Rovelli

Edited April 5, 2018 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I can believe that the universe is real and not believe that tomorrow gravity will be the same as it is today. 

You can. You'd be wrong though.

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You can. You'd be wrong though.

Why?  What evidence do you have that I'd be wrong?

 

https://futurism.com/the-gravitational-constant-is-it-really-constant/

Edited April 5, 2018 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Why?  What evidence do you have that I'd be wrong?

 

https://futurism.com/the-gravitational-constant-is-it-really-constant/

You’re bridging thinwhiteduke territory.

[grego]

2 hours ago, redskinss said:

I said atheist but I guess I'm actually agnostic. 

Plus I like that word better. 

Atheism has become a word associated with the religion of believing there is no god when for me its not about religion its just about a total lack of proof or common sense. 

I always tell people that I'm not an atheist I'm nothing at all,  does not believing in dragons make me you anything? 

No? 

Then neither does not believing in god. 

 

"I reject term atheist. Why do we need a word for not doing or believing something? We don't call people who don't play golf 'non-golfers' ". 

 

Lol. 

[PeterMP]

57 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You’re bridging thinwhiteduke territory.

 

I asked a straight forward question.  Why don't you just answer it?  What evidence do you have that tomorrow gravity will be like it is today?

 

(The reason you didn't address the question is that the evidence is really weak.  We all act like it is very likely that gravity will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday (and in fact we act like that is the only real possibility), but the only evidence that we really have is it has always seemed to be like that in the past, and while superficially, that seems like good evidence, but deep down, we all know that past results do not guarantee future performance.  We all know that isn't scientific evidence.  

 

(And that even ignores cases where people have claimed to experience changes in gravity.  We dismiss these claims as crack pots, liars, tricks of the mind, etc., but all we are doing is dismissing claims that go against our pre-conceived (non-scientific) notions that things like gravity are natural laws.)

 

When push comes to shove, there isn't a really good reason that gravity can't be different tomorrow than it was today.  The evidence boils down to, well, it is has always seemed to be that way and nobody wants to really base an argument on that.)

Edited April 5, 2018 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I asked a straight forward question.  Why don't you just answer it?  What evidence do you have that tomorrow gravity will be like it is today?

Yeah, I mean your question was straight forward but it was also bizarre. You can believe that gravity will be different tomorrow and you will be wrong. The fact that gravity has always stayed the same might not be enough to convince you but tomorrow, I'll go downstairs and if my kitchen table and chairs aren't floating around, I'm going to come back on here and brag about how smart I am because I knew gravity would still be the same.

 

And I get that we don't totally understand gravity... Using things that we don't understand yet as proof of a God has been a losing strategy for a long, long time

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah, I mean your question was straight forward but it was also bizarre. You can believe that gravity will be different tomorrow and you will be wrong. The fact that gravity has always stayed the same might not be enough to convince you but tomorrow, I'll go downstairs and if my kitchen table and chairs aren't floating around, I'm going to come back on here and brag about how smart I am because I knew gravity would still be the same.

 

And I get that we don't totally understand gravity... Using things that we don't understand yet as proof of a God has been a losing strategy for a long, long time

 

I'm not using it as proof that God exist.  I'm using it to make a broader point.  We all believe things that there isn't really good evidence for.  Even when we understand gravity much better, there won't be evidence that gravity can't change.

 

Science can never tell you something a kin to a natural law exist.  That isn't possible.  You inherently and strongly believe in natural laws, but that belief doesn't come from science and no matter how well we understand something science is never going to be able to say it is a natural law.  Science does not (and never will) say that the past is a good predictor of the future.  Science essentially assumes that.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not using it as proof that God exist.  I'm using it to make a broader point.  We all believe things that there isn't really good evidence for.  Even when we understand gravity much better, there won't be evidence that gravity can't change.

“Good evidence” is where we disagree I suppose. We all experience gravity every moment of every day. There is plenty of reason to believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow. There is zero reason to doubt it.

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

“Good evidence” is where we disagree I suppose. We all experience gravity every moment of every day. There is plenty of reason to believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow. There is zero reason to doubt it.

 

Your post is only true if you ignore people that claim to have had experiences that suggest that gravity is't the the same every moment every day (seen things float, been able to lift incredible things, etc.)

 

And it isn't scientific evidence.  You have a strong belief in something that science doesn't say is true.

Edited April 5, 2018 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

The fundamental components of the scientific method is create a hypothesis, make a prediction from your hypothesis, test your hypothesis.

So I don't understand why Eratosthenes' calculation of the circumference of the Earth does not count as science.  Is it because we don't know if he made a hypothesis first concerning the total size?  That's in regards to Scientific Method, they are interlinked, but that's not the definition of science:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science 

 

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
    b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

    b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art

 

  He definitely did his research to create a replicatable process to confirm this (he was off by 10-15% in initial attempts to get that, but that was based on 5-6 bits of information concerning locations and distances of places in Egypt he believed was accurate at the time, which when corrected shows using his process only being off by 0.16%).  When dealing with something the size of the Earth in that time period, do we need to expect him to make a wild guess first to consider that technically science?

 

I posted a link earlier about the history of scientific method earlier. The Egyptians were doing medical procedures and research and documented that for other people to use after them generation after generation.  This was totally through trial and error plus predictions of what might or might not work accumulating into a knowledge-base that other civilizations at the time highly respected and some individuals did for a living.  I don't agree with your premise that we didn't have science before St. Augustine because everything I just mentioned was before him or Jesus was even born.  

 

Also, for clarification (and not to be rude), but I thought I knew where you were going with this after talking with @The Sisko, but what does this have to do with Religion again?

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So I sent the link to the first page of this thread to my little sister.  The only person I've ever told to look for something I posted in here was our Dad, and that was regarding the Stadium (that's primarily because I was starting threads for him).  She is completely floored by this discussion and the way ya'll are respectfully carrying yourselves despite you're strikingly different viewpoints and beliefs, and vast web of reasoning behind them on a topic that is incredibly complex and sensitive.  Just figured I'd share that.

 

Thank you.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Renegade7

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Your post is only true if you ignore people that claim to have had experiences that suggest that gravity is't the the same every moment every day (seen things float, been able to lift incredible things, etc.)

That’s an affirmative.

 

Everybody else is probably getting bored of this conversation so I’ll make one last post and then you can bottom line it.

 

The original question was, how would you convince someone in the existence of God. Is your point that since people believe in things like gravity, that they experience all the time, even though they’re not scientifically testable or fully understood, that a belief in anything is equally valid? If so, how is this convincing of a God? The same logic could be used to argue the existence of leprechauns.

 

[tshile]

47 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The same logic could be used to argue the existence of leprechauns.

 

Exactly. Or aliens. Or anything else that we don’t have proof does or doesn’t exist. 

 

I think the the crux here is (and I’ve done this plenty) asserting that god isn’t real and we feel that way because we believe in science. As if the two conflict. After reading your conversation with him, I’ve realized science and god are not mutually exclusive. 

 

In fact, the way I relate science and god has completely changed (being confused and unsure of something I was sure about recently, if nothing else) after following the conversation 

 

people say say why should you believe? I think peter’s point is we believe in a lot of stuff for which there is no scientific backing

Edited April 5, 2018 by tshile

[DCSaints_fan]

18 hours ago, PeterMP said:

No because he did not carry out falsification of hypothesis through experiments (as I clearly already stated in why Aristotle wasn't a scientist).

 

It is a calculation.  The most complex geometry proof is not science.  Making star maps is not science.  Measuring distances between things is not science.  Observation and thought alone is not science.

 

The fundamental components of the scientific method is create a hypothesis, make a prediction from your hypothesis, test your hypothesis.

 

Ok, well how about Cavendish's calculation of the gravitational constant?  Or Milliken's calculation of the charge of the electron?  Should those experiments have been rejected from journals because they were just measuring something?  

[Renegade7]

8 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The original question was, how would you convince someone in the existence of God. 

 

I want to take a break from posting on ES for a little while, but I'm going to answer your question in hopes of changing the subject and that someone hopefully can prove me wrong first:

 

You can't.

 

You cannot convince someone that something is fact when your evidence is based on faith.  Especially now in the modern information age. 

 

You mentioned that you've already read the whole Bible, so you had a leg up from what we can tell on most people between the time Christianity first started and the time of the printing press. You had the chance to read the whole thing and decide what did and didn't make sense to you. Most everyone can do that now, but that was extremely uncommon from what we can tell in the time period I'm talking about where Christianity spread across Europe. After Christianity took over Rome, you could be shunned for not being a Christian. In Medieval Christian Europe you could be killed for being an Atheist or a "heretic" by the Church. 

 

Now that all sounds horrible and probably makes you doubt the whole thing even more, but I'm going to eventually get to the good news.  You asked how you would convince someone God existed today.  Back in the day, people were born into it and for the most part for a very long time not encouraged to question it at all (in many cases it was just flat out dangerous).  Now people are still born into it (like myself), but we can question it as much as we want (like I do).  In this country, its for the most part completely voluntary, especially compared to back in the day. But there's an advantage here that I don't believe is talked about enough:

 

The modern information age has created the ability to verify and prove events in the Bible without resorting to calling them miracles.

 

There are somethings that just seem out of order or borderline exaggerated, but a lot of it isn't when you really think about it.  The Bible is very much a history book, and archaeology is backing up the existence of ancient sites and people left and right for a while now.  And there are certain things in there that if you step back from and think about aren't really that far fetched.  Some people believe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by an asteroid exploding in the atmosphere directly overhead instead of making it to the surface, causing a rain of fire and debris on the area.  From what we can tell, the Exile to Babylon really happened and instrumental in the giving up of secondary idols by the early Jews and better organization of the scripture they had at the time.  You can match up most of the prominent events that lead to and included the Exodus by shifting part of the Egyptian timeline, that nobody really wants to do because Ancient Egyptian history is a reference point for the time period of other ancient civilizations (and as has been brought up in this thread the mistranslaton of crossing the Red Sea instead of the Reed Sea).  And I feel some people make the mistake of trying to prove there was a Jesus Christ who walked on water versus one who walked into a church in Jerusalem and started flipping over tables because they were treating it like a Potomac Mills.  There's also an incredible amount of wisdom in there that doesn't need believing in God to respect or understand.

 

But again, you asked how to convince someone today that there is a God, and I'm telling you you really can't.  It's one thing to be born into faith and leave, ts another to be born without it and someone try to explain to them later why they should(that's borderline impossible).  So many of the questions that people try to use the Bible to explain has been explained now without it.  At the same time, and this is what I've noticed personally and people may see different examples more often then not, but people I meet that were either on the fence or on the other side completely before they do come around to full blown faith that He does exist are looking for answers to questions they cannot find on Google.  I'm not talking about how he universe started or anything like that, I'm talking more about what you're going through and where to go next.  

 

Quote

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.  Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

Bout thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut they door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and they Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

 

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

 

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

 

You know where to find that, I shouldn't have to tell you.  There's no doubt in my mind Jesus really said that and stuff like that lead to him getting killed.  For whatever reason those verses lead right into the Lord's Prayer and from what I can tell he wasn't against there being a Church.  I don't believe that has anything to do with why he said that, I believe he wanted us to treat this more like a personal relationship on our own terms.  Were there rules and recommendation? Of course, but nothing that required the Spanish Inquisition to enforce.

 

What I hate the idea of saying to people is "prove that he doesn't exist". Your back and forth with Peter reminds me of that, it goes nowhere as that's not proof of anything. Sometimes I wonder if you're asking this question even though you already know the answer, though.  And I can't tell if this is actually a hypothetical challenge or you're at a point of your life where you want to believe without feeling like a sheep because of how much you already know.  You do not have to answer that.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

14 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You’re bridging thinwhiteduke territory.

 

[techboy]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You can't.

 

This is just not true. I personally know many people who were, at some point, convinced of the existence of God. 

 

Now generally, these are not people who already feel strongly one way or the other, probably because the backfire effect just reinforces the existing beliefs of those people, but there are plenty of those too.

 

In fact, I'd expect that his scenario of talking to people that had never even heard of God would make them easier to convince, not harder, due to the absence of that backfire.

 

In general, there are a variety of philosophical and historical arguments that establish that it is more probable than not that God exists. I would describe these as persuasive, but not compulsory.

 

More often, though, people come to faith in God through personal connections and what believers would call the witness of the Holy Spirit (and others might call delusion or pattern recognition gone haywire).

 

Either way, you specifically asked people not to go there so I'm puzzled as to why you did.

 

Since we're on the subject though, be careful. Most of the "scholars" pushing Bible Archeology, especially on TV, are hacks with an agenda one way or the other. I'd check credentials carefully before getting sucked in, if for no other reason than it's easy to get exposed in public later. Not a good look.