Thirith on 8/12/2007 at 14:51
Quote Posted by Vasquez
This again doesn't have anything to do with faith/religion. If you want to prove scientifically that God exists, it takes much more proving than "This bunch of people have seen Him, talked to Him, or otherwise experienced Him - therefore He must exist", because there are still lots of people who
haven't seen/heard/etc Him.
Otherwise traveling to Sirius hitchhiking on aliens' flying saucer, ghosts, saints on cheese toast and so on would be scientifically true.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea how what you said has anything to do with my question to jay pettitt.
SD on 8/12/2007 at 15:04
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Otherwise traveling to Sirius hitchhiking on aliens' flying saucer, ghosts, saints on cheese toast and so on would be scientifically true.
But it must be true! Somebody
wrote it! If it's good enough for Christianity...
Starrfall on 8/12/2007 at 15:54
Quote Posted by Vasquez
This again doesn't have anything to do with faith/religion. If you want to prove scientifically that the Eiffel Tower exists, it takes much more proving than "This bunch of people have seen it, touched it, or otherwise experienced it - therefore it must exist", because there are still lots of people who
haven't seen/touched/etc it.
If I were to insist the Eiffel Tower didn't exist, how would you prove it to me?
Vasquez on 8/12/2007 at 15:57
I would take you to see, touch and lick it, Starry. If you still insisted it's not there, I would ask you to walk through it ;)
Sorry Thirith, I should read more carefully, I was just in a bit of a hurry.
Starrfall on 8/12/2007 at 16:08
Woooo free trip to Paris!
What if I insisted it doesn't matter because I'm obviously hallucinating or dreaming or whatever? How do you know you're not just plugged in all matrix style and this isn't real at all? How do we know the scientists aren't lying to us?
Who gets to decide what things are reasonable to believe and what aren't?
Religion should be challenged because it's often pushed on the non-religious, but "you can't prove that" is kind of a weak way to convince someone that what they believe is wrong.
Chimpy Chompy on 8/12/2007 at 16:16
Quote Posted by Starrfall
How do you know
you're not just plugged in all matrix style and this isn't real at all?
We don't, but there's no good reason to believe it, it's rather useless as anything more than an intellectual curiosity. You might as well note it down as a logical possibility, then ignore it.
Assuming we don't stick with brain-in-vat scenarios, we can generally be sure scientists aren't lying to us cos they've proved their worth over and over in the past.
Quote:
Religion should be challenged because it's often pushed on the non-religious, but "you can't prove that" is kind of a weak way to do it.
What's a better way then?
Starrfall on 8/12/2007 at 16:27
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
We don't, but that's an utterly useless belief to dwell on and nothing more than an intellectual curiosity. You might as well note it down as a logical possibility, then ignore it.
I'm not religious in the slightest, but my guess is that that's how religious people may feel about the existence of god.
Quote:
Assuming we don't stick with brain-in-vat scenarios, we can generally be sure scientists aren't lying to us cos they've proved their worth over and over in the past.
How do you know? Just because they're right about some things doesn't mean they're not lying about others. In fact, what if they deliberately tell the truth most of the time so that the lies go down easier. Somewhere there's gotta be
faith.
Quote:
What's a better way then?
Ninja edited to say what I meant better :) Of course just going GOD SAYS without applying any of the reason and logic that god supposedly gifted everyone with is just as bad a way of convincing someone that what you believe is right.
Chimpy Chompy on 8/12/2007 at 17:27
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I'm not religious in the slightest, but my guess is that that's how religious people may feel about the existence of god.
You've lost me. The view I offered would be a means by which people *ignore* the option of a god.
Your computer works, doesn't it? Airplanes and TVs too. Why suddenly start distrusting the scientific process on some topic? I know it's not like science is immune to misuse - it's carried out by flawed people with their own subjective biases. But you should have a good reason before you suddenly start rejecting some theory.
Yeah there's faith on some level. But it's not a blind guess - there are good reasons to go that way based on our own experiences. So it's lazy to equate that with faith in a god.
Vasquez on 8/12/2007 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Religion should be challenged because it's often pushed on the non-religious, but "you can't prove that" is kind of a weak way to convince someone that what they believe is wrong.
Glad to see I'm not the only sloppy reader in this thread :cheeky: My original point was that science and religion are so different from the very root of their viewpoints, that it's needless - and impossible - to prove scientifically that God exists, or doesn't exist. To put it simply, religion is a matter of spirit, science is matter of the mind.
Spaztick on 8/12/2007 at 20:29
So I guess everyone here that disowns history disowns quantum theory as well then, quantum physics is about as unempirical as it gets.
