Quote:Original post by _the_phantom_

Quote:Original post by cwhite

Quote:Original post by johnhattan

Quote:Original post by _the_phantom_
Btw, I've a wonderfull theory about life, wanna hear it?
OK, its simple, i'm the only person which exists, the universe is a construct completely of my mind and every thing and everyone which happens in it is there for me alone.

Zero points for originality :)

But if he's right, it's still his idea. Zero points for originality if you're wrong, 100 points if you're right.

Well, I did go on to say i wasnt the first one to come up with it (although i did 'discover it' myself while laying awake in bed one night years ago, it was only many years later that someone refered to it as 'solipsism' to me)... but then again, as cwhite points out, maybe I was! *insert Doc Evil style pose here*

There was a terrific "Too Much Coffee Man" comic a buncha years ago. TMCM is awake in bed wondering if he's actually a brain in a jar and his entire existence is an illusion.

The next frame is a brain in a jar surrounded by aliens saying "Uh oh. He's on to us."

Quote:
Hence why logic breaks down in any attempt to refute a faith-based argument. For instance, consider the statement "Everything exists because God made it." There is no way to refute the theory, because any evidence that could refute it would have been created by God. Thus, the existence of evidence refuting the theory is itself a contradiction.

Not exactly, if you're saying what I think you are.

We have to understand our basis of refutation... namely our understanding of things. In order for us to form our postulates on how things work/happen/etc, though, we have to make certain assumptions, which tend to change based on our overarching beliefs. For instance, most of our dating methods are based on assumptions regarding initial amounts of radioactive materials. If those assumptions are wrong, the dates are wrong. So, again, given that our assumptions are likely imperfect, we would need a time machine to see if they're correct.

So, the only contradiction to the "truth", whatever that may be, would lie in our faulty assumptions regarding what happened, not in the actual events.

-fel

If you are extremly religious you may not like what I have to say in this post.

What is science all about?

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
www.dictionary.com

Quote:
Let me just start by saying that there is no Scientific Evidence to support that God didn't create the Universe 2 minutes ago.

Science is not about proving a negative:
Prove that God does not exist …
Prove that God didn’t do …
Prove that I don’t talk directly to god every morning …
…

Prove that extra terrestrials did not abduct you from your home last night and perform experiments upon you. But you don’t know that it happened because they have the technology to erase the entire event from your mind and not leave any physical evidence which could be detected by you or anyone else.

This is identical to saying:

Prove that God did not flood the entire earth a couple thousand years ago and leave no physical trace of it ever happening.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)
(Sorry I just couldn’t think of a better example)

You cannot be expected to prove a negative. This is what logic in science is all about.

opinion
Religion is not about logically proving or disproving something, it is about baseless faith. Faith that you came to accept as rational through years of indoctrination as a child or as a new convert. The same process happens in every religion you have to be guided to accept the core principles of your belief system. If you’re a Christian and wonder how a Muslim can believe what they believe it because they went through the same process as you and vise versa.
/opinion

I tend to stray away from lounge posts because you are rated down based simply because people may disagree with you. I think that’s stupid and I will delete this post if my rating suffers negatively.

[Edited by - try_catch_this on March 27, 2005 12:54:16 AM]

Quote:Original post by try_catch_thisI think that’s stupid and I will delete this post if my rating suffers negatively.

Don't say that! :)

I been lurking here and seeing some pretty helpfull people with crappy ratings just because the posted in the lounge.

It happend to me a couple times and I was gonna swear off lounge posting for a while.

I mean this madness has got to stop.

Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
The passages quoted above serve as deterrents to attempting to treat God and faith as mere scientific hypotheses which must be proved through test and experiment. Faith is an innate conviction and a relationship; if you don't have it, don't sweat it. This unnecessary opposition erected between "science" and "religion" is a falsehood. They are not incompatible. The real problem is the deification of science - the conversion of "science" into a god, or a religion - which then sets one ideologically at odds with the other, because both (in the theological context) demand exclusivity.

Those who go to pains to decry creationism are, in fact, religious zealots.

True, however, it has been my experience that it is usually the the religious zealots reactions and objections to scientific beliefs (I won't say truths in the context of this conversation) that serve to deify science. The majority of "scientific believers" usually react with something to the effect of, "Hey, relax, buddy. I never said anything about your god or my god. Hell (hehe...), I never even said that your god wan't my god..." Very rarely has a scientist ever espoused his research or findings as evidence to disprove any religious beliefs.

I believe that the root of these debates often comes from the fact that scientific findings often require people with religious beliefs to re-evaluate those beliefs. Note that this is not the scientific communities aim or desired result. The scientific community largely desires to share knowledge and advance the pool of human knowedge. The religious reaction is something internal. One minute they believe that they know or understand God (which is a contradiction to most religions basic definition of god, sic...) and the next minute some smart-ass scientis says, "Hey, look at this! This is really neat!". They think about what they're shown and realize that in order to incorporate what they are shown into their belief system would require some fundamental changes to their beliefs an react negatively because, hey, no one want to change, right? (sic, once again...).

The fact is that there are extremists on both sides that are out to disprove the other for whatever science fair project the failed in school or prayer went unanswered when their puppy was ill. However, the vast majority of people do not see the need to pick a "side" and draw a line. Yin and Yang, baby... Evolution does not preclude Creationism and vice versa. Don't freak out. I don't recall the Bible ever saying that God intended our physiology to be what set us apart from other animals. Perhaps it was the fact that we are having this converstion right now?

Mage2k

Edit: fixed quote tag

Quote:Original post by felisandria
Technically creationism can't be refuted without time travel. It isn't something that can be tested in the first place. Once you throw an all-powerful being into the mix, all bets are off.

...

Now if you don't believe in an all-powerful being, then creationism isn't possible in your personal belief system, but that's not something you can apply to someone else.

-fel

It really doesn't matter that creationism can't be refuted (purely by a technicality, as you demonstrate) -- it still isn't science and cannot seriously be considered an alternative scientific theory regarding the origins of life and the universe. If the very possibility of something depends on the observer's belief system, as you admit is the case with creationism, it is for all practical purposes automatically disqualified as being scientifically relevant.

I jump into these things all the time and my rating lingers right around 1000. I think my rating says more about the distribution of beliefs than my helpfulness. I can't remember the last time I was able to 'help' anybody here. :
Anyway:

Quote:Hence why logic breaks down in any attempt to refute a faith-based argument. For instance, consider the statement "Everything exists because God made it." There is no way to refute the theory, because any evidence that could refute it would have been created by God. Thus, the existence of evidence refuting the theory is itself a contradiction.

I don't see why you have to whine about it. If you're unable to disprove a theory, it's your problem, not MINE (for example) for believing in it. And insofar as the other half of science is concerned (that is the evidence and support of what you choose to believe), well, like I said. The Bible is full of promises. Let each Christian see for himself whether God fulfills them.

It seems that you're conceding (in a very frustrated way) that people have the ability to believe whatever they want. It's not just "convenient" that science and Christianity stare at the same facts and have two different explanations handy, it's a crucial part of Christian doctrine. How convenient does it have to become before you realize it was designed to be this way? That Christianity was designed to require faith, just like any scientific theory that seeks to explain anything. The theory of evolution observes facts, but it is not in itself FACT. No scientist in the world will say that it is. Because no matter how you try to spin it, it requires faith.

If we could prove Christianity, then we will have proven that 1)its claims are true (namely that it requires faith), and 2)it doesn't require faith, because it is a proven matter. This is a paradox, and that means everyone explodes.

You have shown that we can't disprove Christianity either. Thus, we are left with a world in which Christianity may or may not be true, and it takes faith to decide. How utterly convenient that the whole of the Bible defends itself.

If you really want to disprove Christianity, I'll tell you how. You've got to do it from the inside out. A proof by contradiction. But, of course, that means first assuming that the Bible is true in its entirety and proceeding from there. So the only way to disprove it is to find out what it REALLY says. Now I find THAT hilarious.