Reply With Quote
Is your faith in evolution the same?
No, no.
Math and logic ARE a part of science. They are among the Most important tools.
You have a very narrow definition of science, with all due respect. It uses math, logic, observation, ... to be a powerful way of knowing. Science is not weak because it uses multiple disciplines, it is more useful because it does.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-06-2014 at 10:39 PM.
Is your faith in evolution the same?
Example: Could you chose to believe the Earth does not exist? Probably not. That means you cannot choose to believe it does. People who can choose to believe something that's not obviously true are considered to be delusional. I don't think you're delusional. You probably did not choose to believe in a god, so what evidence forced your hand? With the Earth, well it's so "there" all the time.
Non-personal god: A god that doesn't give a about you, didn't create the universe for you or anyone else.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. It's an inevitability that the causal chain has to start somewhere. If it's not true that it was started by something that has no beginning (and thus is not part of another chain), then it had to have been started by nothing.
It's not an inevitability that god exists. I've said that before.
No. They are not, at least not in the sense of folks asserting that things have to be falsifiable to be true. If you want to define science as including all three forms of knowledge (empiricism, math and logical relations), then I guess you we can agree. But then this all gets rather pointless.
It didn't have to be started. Why must there be a start? How do you come to that conclusion that there was an "it" to start? Starting something implies there was a time when that something wasn't started. Time before time is nonsensical. Where is the end? Even at entropy there is technically still existence.
Is there really? Aren't folks arguing against believing in god based on empiricist grounds reifying god?
Sorry to cross talk, but not everything has to be falsifiable to be believed. It's been said and bears repeating: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that extraordinary proof has to be in a form that could be debunked if it were not proof.
No. Am I reifying ghosts to say I don't believe in them? There's the concept of what a god is, else you couldn't claim to be theist, and then there's reification of that concept by the believer, not by the non-believer. We don't give the concept credibility by not believing it.
You cannot rationally equate belief in "things" to belief in "gods". I can believe you when you tell me it's raining in California, never even have to prove it to me. I cannot believe you when you say you can levitate and have OBEs. I'd need proof.
Assertions being false and true are only PART of a way of knowing. Logic is limited. Math is limited. Science IS a way of understanding how our universe functions. The best way I know. It is powerful because it uses powerful tools and applies them to gain and refine knowledge about our universe.
The beginning of time is still the beginning. It's still the start.
Once all matter officially goes away by entropy, time stops (since nothing is occupying space anymore). So that does mean time will end.
But there is knowledge that isn't provable by anything other than personal experience. For example, you cannot learn to play a guitar by reading about it. You'd have to do it. You cannot know what loss feels like by reading Grapes of Wrath. You'd have to experience loss. That however doesn't work with belief in a non-personal god, because it doesn't communicate with anyone. It has to be a conclusion you've drawn and therein lies the issue.
I don't have "Faith" in evolution, I have a belief in it based of testable and verifiable evidence, but for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and call it "faith" to give you a point on your side to begin with.
The "Theory" of evolution has been tested and repeatedly verified for over 100 years. Just because you deny the evidence based on your belief, does not make it untrue. The fact that it is called a "theory" doesn't mean what you probably think it means. Just like the "Theory" of Gravity. The word "Theory" in science does not mean the same thing as a "theory" in a metaphorical sense, like the "theory" of what is going to happen on the next season of The Strain, or the next Avengers movie.
A "theory" in science is something that is CONSTANTLY being tried to be disproven, and the "Theory" of Evolution is one of the longest standing "theories" around, even the "Theory" of Gravity is questioned more and known less about than Evolution at this point.
How can the theory of evolution be tested when it takes millions of years for a species to evolve? How can a fish evolving to a walking land animal be tested?
I disagree. I assert that logic and math are the ONLY things we actually know. The rest, we just believe to be true based on evidence.
For intents and purposes, there's not a start since to have a start you'd have to have a stop, and a time between stop and start. What is the time between the stop and start of the universe? How long was it stopped?
You're using incompatible concepts. If you're going to use time, you have to live within it, not outside of it as a remote viewer. Your conclusions about god are from within time, yet you somehow think you can understand the start of the universe as if you see it on a timeline. That presents a paradox.
If time stops, time has ended. When there are no events, there is no time. That doesn't mean "oh but later on there's an event" because time is the distance between events, and without the events there is simply no time. So yes, if there are no events, there is no time. You cannot magically put yourself at entropy and say "but if we sit here then time goes by" because you've contaminated the experiment.Once all matter officially goes away by entropy, time stops (since nothing is occupying space anymore). So that does mean time will end.
Darwin predicting that a species of moth with an infathomably long proboscis wasn't really based on math. Besides the likes between physics and math are pretty blurred so it's sort of foolish to say "oh that's math not science." Sometimes one precedes the other. An equation or calculation can confirm a theory to explain phenomena and other times a theory is needed to explain what appears to be an inconsistency in the math
I agree with this. That's why I say belief is compelled, not chosen.
By putting it on a taco.
Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?
You are backing yourself into a corner....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils
Besides the fossil record, there is direct observable evidence of evolution in our lifetime.
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-ex...ion-in-action/
I know.... Next you are going to try to separate evolution into two separate categories, like Micro and Macro evolution..... Just a hint... they are the same thing, just on different time scales.
And like Gravity, the ToE only attempts to explain how evolution works. That it works is a fact.
Why would you consider it possible without evidence to support it? Sounds more like hope.
Did you see it happen? Were you there?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions