Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think he's intentionally stupid, imo.

I'm not arguing that. Him being stupid and doing stupid things intentionally to bait you are both possible.

[Blake]

I'm not arguing that. Him being stupid and doing stupid things intentionally to bait you are both possible.

I don't think he's intentionally baiting when he stays on topic.

Imo.

[DMC]

Honestly, I think you're the one being disingenuous about this. The whole point of trying to expand the scope isn't to get out of the existence/non-existence barrier. It is to get you away from arguing with empiricism about things that haven't yet been tested. You can either argue about time, existence and universe as logical constructs or as scientific ones. Science doesn't define things in terms of logical barriers. The "universe" stopped having its classical definition the moment we were able to study it as a mass system. After that, it got physical constraints, it no longer had its logical extensions.

If we discovered that this expanding ball was just one of many expanding balls, do you think we'd stop calling this the universe? No, we wouldn't. There would just be other universes, and then there'd be terms like multiversal cluster and mega-verse and whatever.

We have to work with what we currently know. We simply cannot work with what we don't know. We can propose things, but they have to have some foundation in empiricism. God has no foundation in empiricism. There's no question in science or any of the sciences that is answered with metaphysics. There's no reason to think a god did any of it. If a god suddenly appeared and proved to everyone that he did it, we'd all have to change how we think, but until that happens, it's not a good answer, and not even really an answer at all. That's the issue.

That's only for us to know god is the answer. That's not something either of us is asserting is going to happen.

What? Aren't you saying god is the answer?

None of that prevents belief from being binary. It just splits the issue up into smaller issues that are still binary.

No.

The sun rising in the East is absolutely not an a priori truth.

And I didn't say it did in the statement you quoted.

You're no longer discussing the topic. You're now discussing semantics. Semantics are important in discussions because they get the participants on the same wavelength, so they understand one another and aren't being misrepresented in the responses. They are only as good as their need however, which is to help one person understand what the other person is saying. Do you know what I meant? It's odd that you can make the mental leap needed to propose a god's existence but get hung up on semantics.

I think that humans are the closest analogues to god, yes. At least as far as we can understand, we are the things most able to control the causal chain. However, since we are part of the chain, such a control is just an illusion.

Which is it? How are we most able to do something we aren't really able to do?

I'm not saying a mover exists out of necessity. I am saying that I'd only belief it doesn't exist when I actually encounter a convincing argument for it.

You're saying you lack a disbelief in a god, as if disbelief is the result of learning. Do newborns therefore believe a god exists? Do they not believe a god exists? Or do they lack a disbelief?

I imagine there'd be quite a few, but they'd say so for a different reason than that which you're suggesting. The primary reason would be that I don't conform to their idea of god, and as such can't be a theist. I think a lot of them would say that about people of other religions. A, "You don't really believe in god unless you believe in my god," kinda thing.

But all theists, not just one type or another. You've stated you don't necessarily have the belief in a necessary god, but that you don't have a disbelief. That's an agnostic position.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Nope. I'm merely stating that the two terms aren't separable since there's no aspect that I assign to god besides being the PM. Like if I said god was necessarily the PM and kind, then an unkind PM would not be god. So I'm trying to meet you half-way and say the closest thing to an ungod-like PM would be a causesless effect. I guess technically speaking, if such an effect were at the head of the chain, I would accept it as the PM and be perfectly fine with people not calling it god.

Therefore not theist. That's how this debate started.

I think you're just showing your bias. We both ultimately believe space and time are just parts of the same thing, so it's hard to really think about them separately.

A bumper and a fanbelt are part of the same car, but they are not the same things and we cannot use the term "before" without inferring time. The term "in front of" is more of a spatial reference than a time reference, and doesn't infer time. However in order to have that term make sense, there has to be a front and rear of the subject and that is either agreed upon by those discussing or it too is a time based reference.

I'm open to suggestions and examples where "before" doesn't reference time.

As for the rest of what you say, I don't see why not. I think you're proposing magic, but I am not nearly as inclined to judge you harshly for it.

I'm glad you think cause without cause requires magic, as long as you don't think that changes by naming the cause "god".

There's actually no difference, especially from a factual space. The only thing you know for sure is that you exist, and once you're gone, that existence goes away with you. So the only existence protected by a priori truth is your own life-span. The rest is just our belief about how time works. We believe it's a physical construct of the universe (meaning in this case to be the expanding sphere that's about 13 Billion years old, not everything anywhere in any possible way).

So you're going to introduce the solipsism argument where anything goes because it's all perception? I don't think you're using that in your lack of disbelief in a god's existence.

That's simply a radiation (meaning expansion) chart. It's post-Bang, completely agnostic to whatever happened before. It's not even trying to claim that nothing happened before.

Its not, but like Hawking stated, there's no reason to suppose "before". If time began there, that's especially true. It more closely represents the idea of the big bang and the time since than a nebulous concept of a multiverse where quantum entanglement was caused by an uncaused god. Let's keep the discussion in perspective: your alternative is that a magical being did it.

This is what I was trying to say up top. You keep mixing definitions of universe. On one hand, you want to describe it in a logical (classical) sense, to mean everything in existence. But it's not thought about that way in a physical sense. It's considered to be an actual object that we can study and learn things about. It has borders, and an age, and a life-span. If there is another such expanding sphere "somewhere" else, then it would be considered a different universe by science. It would have a different chart, a different radiation pattern. It might not be as big or as old. Or it could be older and bigger.

If its borders aren't the border of existence, then it's not the border. Sounds like a paradox, right? How can you imagine beyond it yet it not be in existence?

The turtle analogy is from the second extension of world-turtle concept, not the first. When asked what the world turtle resided on, the reply was another turtle. It was a way of not answering the question and simply introducing an intermediate step and calling it done. the head of the causal chain, an uncaused effect, a prime mover, cannot be a turtle by definition. It's the actual ground the turtle stack is standing on. My whole point is that such ground has to exist, regardless of what turtles are on top of it. Something being cyclical is just another turtle because it's still on this side of the existence/non existence barrier.

I know what it's from but the issue isn't the 2nd turtle. The issue is the 1st. The issue is the god that doesn't need a 2nd turtle. Had the woman simply said "it doesn't need anything" would that have been a better answer?

Nope. Been a deist for a long time despite only being 24 year old. Family's nominally Christian, but we hardly did anything with it.

But you at least are somewhat versed in the god idea. Do you think part of you idea of a god comes from Christianity?

Anyway, it depends on how one define's "answer". It's not an answer to any physical phenomenon, but rather an answer to all of them. As a result, I can still look for proximate mechanisms without feeling like I already know the answer. Theism doesn't generate a lack of motivation for me.

You cannot suppose the final answer to the puzzle then pretend you're solving it piece by piece in a way that justifies your presupposition and not be spinning your wheels.

It's a bad take, man. It's bad primarily because it's a poor analogy. There is no switching of scopes going on between the universe and extensions of the universe. It's also bad because it's misleading. Humans are individuals and so of course they can have mothers. But the human race is a mass group and so do not have a single mother. However, they have an origin, just like individual humans do. It was just a response by someone wanting to make headlines and feel good about himself. It means nothing to a plenum of empirical trends we've observed.

A single event might have a cause but that doesn't mean the universe in which events happen has a cause.

I said nothing about them being found. I'm speaking logically, not archaeologically.

Do you think the 1st sapiens is the cause for sapiens?

"Two plus two equals four," is not testable. It's just true.

So then anything you cannot test is just as likely to be true, is that what you're saying?

As far as the rest of the quote goes, yeah, I'll accept that. I think people use both belief systems depending on the situation. I will say, that Marx wasn't talking about theism necessarily when he said that. He was anti-religious and saw no reason to consider god at all, whereas Freud was a straight-up atheist and thought the idea of god was damaging to people.



He thought all those things because they were the most reasonable at the time. Empiricists had to work to show they were right. It's perfectly reasonable to attribute big actions to be actors. The only difference is now we understand that actions are complex and require a lot more understanding to know their causes and effects.

How have we eliminated the non-testable suggestions however? If we find a method, does that negate the underlying "god"? If Empiricists were right, and if we've eliminated the mul ude of various gods over time using empiricism, why is this last god any different?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But what is completely different is to look at something complex and say, "There's no other explanation but to say god has created this directly. No way could any proximate mechanisms lead to this." That's how the analogy was used by opponents of evolution. They thought you could slap the "god" stamp on something and call it solved, no science necessary. I don't swing that way. Even though I believe this universe was set into motion, I do not believe there's anything about this universe that we can't learn through investigation.

God must've done this because I have no other explanation is the 'god stamp.' In order to prove a negative you have to have a closed set. It's obvious that you are trying to get one with the 'proximate systems' and semantics of the word 'universe,' but there are two problems. First as Hume first pointed out, human perception is limited and flawed. Just because you think that you have exhausted all of the possibilities does not mean that you have. This has been demonstrated time and time again empirically. Second, just because we call it the 'universe' does not mean reality conforms to the things you attribute to a universe. There is nothing that it's not a multiverse without end and we just call it a universe.

You also can use empirical premises to create rational constructs. This notion that the world of ideas is exclusive from the empirical is also wrong. I can demonstrate that empirically by pointing to anything that has ever been engineered.

Most of what you are doing with 'logical constructs' is to take human experiences and ordering of the universe and assuming that the cosmos operates in the same manner. Man is created in his own image arguments just without scripture as justification. There still is no reason to believe in your platonic ideals.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think he's intentionally baiting when he stays on topic.

Imo.

Most of his topics are baiting and he takes both positions as a matter of course.

[Chinook]

We have to work with what we currently know. We simply cannot work with what we don't know. We can propose things, but they have to have some foundation in empiricism. God has no foundation in empiricism. There's no question in science or any of the sciences that is answered with metaphysics. There's no reason to think a god did any of it. If a god suddenly appeared and proved to everyone that he did it, we'd all have to change how we think, but until that happens, it's not a good answer, and not even really an answer at all. That's the issue.

What? Aren't you saying god is the answer?

We're talking about a question that is both unfalsifiable and has no bearing on any scientific endeavors. There's no issue to be found. The only reason why it's an issue to you is your bias. If you were an editor for a scientific journal, would you not run articles from theists because you feel their work is too tainted by their belief in god?

Which is it? How are we most able to do something we aren't really able to do?

We can't do it. But we pretend to do it to a high degree. Think Searle's Chinese Room for an example of how such a thing is possible.

You're saying you lack a disbelief in a god, as if disbelief is the result of learning. Do newborns therefore believe a god exists? Do they not believe a god exists? Or do they lack a disbelief?

But all theists, not just one type or another. You've stated you don't necessarily have the belief in a necessary god, but that you don't have a disbelief. That's an agnostic position.

Therefore not theist. That's how this debate started.

Newborn infants don't believe god exists. They don't believe anything.

I'm saying I have a belief that god exists. I have such a belief because it's the theory that makes the most sense to me. Like all beliefs, it is subject to change if I am provided with new information.

If you don't want to talk semantics, fine. But then don't constantly try to define what belief means.

I'm glad you think cause without cause requires magic, as long as you don't think that changes by naming the cause "god".

It's gonna require magic no matter how you slice it. That's been one of the central points of my argument.

Its not, but like Hawking stated, there's no reason to suppose "before". If time began there, that's especially true. It more closely represents the idea of the big bang and the time since than a nebulous concept of a multiverse where quantum entanglement was caused by an uncaused god. Let's keep the discussion in perspective: your alternative is that a magical being did it.

Case in point. Hawking provides a complete non-answer, but because it doesn't involve god, you give it the power of an answer.

If its borders aren't the border of existence, then it's not the border. Sounds like a paradox, right? How can you imagine beyond it yet it not be in existence?

No. We know the universe actually has borders, really physical (constantly expanding) ones with numbers attached. If there is existence outside those borders, then there's just existence outside those borders. The only reason why you think it's a paradox is because you keep mixing up definitions of universe. You either have to stick with the quantifiable universe we can study or the theoretical universe that necessarily has to contain all of existence. Otherwise you see paradoxes that aren't there.

I know what it's from but the issue isn't the 2nd turtle. The issue is the 1st. The issue is the god that doesn't need a 2nd turtle. Had the woman simply said "it doesn't need anything" would that have been a better answer?

Yes. It would have been just as wrong, but there'd be no needless regression.

But you at least are somewhat versed in the god idea. Do you think part of you idea of a god comes from Christianity?

Yeah. Not in the sense we're discussing here, though.

You cannot suppose the final answer to the puzzle then pretend you're solving it piece by piece in a way that justifies your presupposition and not be spinning your wheels.

That's what you're hung up on. There's no 'god science.' Functionally speaking, "God did it," is a non-answer for proximate mechanisms. It's like, "Yeah, so? How did he do it?" And everyone is back to trying to figure out mechanisms. Again, this is a horrible extension on your part that you have not backed up.

A single event might have a cause but that doesn't mean the universe in which events happen has a cause.

It doesn't. There's just no reason to assume that the universe is different. The human race is just a collective of humans in Russell's example. He's not referring to the lineage of humans (or at least I hope he's not, because that would destroy his argument before he could get it out of his mouth). Looking for the cause of the universe is looking for the head of the tree. It's not trying to gather all the separate events and saying, "How"?

Do you think the 1st sapiens is the cause for sapiens?

No. But it was the progenitor. That is what Russell was looking for (or rather asserting didn't exist).

So then anything you cannot test is just as likely to be true, is that what you're saying?

Not at all.

How have we eliminated the non-testable suggestions however? If we find a method, does that negate the underlying "god"? If Empiricists were right, and if we've eliminated the mul ude of various gods over time using empiricism, why is this last god any different?

Empiricists did no such thing. They simply gave people an alternative explanation that had the bonus of being predictive. Essentially, science took away the extensions historic people gave to gods. Doing so took away some incentive for people to worship the gods. Had they assigned extensions to god that empiricism can't take away, the people would have gone right now believing in the them.

[Chinook]

God must've done this because I have no other explanation is the 'god stamp.' In order to prove a negative you have to have a closed set. It's obvious that you are trying to get one with the 'proximate systems' and semantics of the word 'universe,' but there are two problems.

Honestly man, I've been in this thread for a really long time already. I really don't feel like starting up a fresh debate with someone who just showed up. I don't mean to sound offensive. It's just been a really long time. I'll just try to give some shorter answers and we can go from there.

First as Hume first pointed out, human perception is limited and flawed. Just because you think that you have exhausted all of the possibilities does not mean that you have. This has been demonstrated time and time again empirically.

That idea is much older than Hume. No one is debating that.

Second, just because we call it the 'universe' does not mean reality conforms to the things you attribute to a universe. There is nothing that it's not a multiverse without end and we just call it a universe.

And then the thing we're currently calling the universe would get some other name. It's the same thing. The point is that once we reifyed the universe, it stopped being a concept and became a thing instead. While the term universe may include all things in existence, that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to this sphere we are currently calling the universe.

You also can use empirical premises to create rational constructs. This notion that the world of ideas is exclusive from the empirical is also wrong. I can demonstrate that empirically by pointing to anything that has ever been engineered.

I love having a classic rationalist/empiricist debate as much as anyone, but this has nothing to do with the topic.

Most of what you are doing with 'logical constructs' is to take human experiences and ordering of the universe and assuming that the cosmos operates in the same manner. Man is created in his own image arguments just without scripture as justification. There still is no reason to believe in your platonic ideals.

Not really. Rather, it's just saying that it's reasonable to assume patterns continue indefinitely unless you have evidence that they don't. That doesn't do anything to eliminate either the search for evidence or the appeal that such evidence can have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Honestly man, I've been in this thread for a really long time already. I really don't feel like starting up a fresh debate with someone who just showed up. I don't mean to sound offensive. It's just been a really long time. I'll just try to give some shorter answers and we can go from there.



That idea is much older than Hume. No one is debating that.



And then the thing we're currently calling the universe would get some other name. It's the same thing. The point is that once we reifyed the universe, it stopped being a concept and became a thing instead. While the term universe may include all things in existence, that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to this sphere we are currently calling the universe.



I love having a classic rationalist/empiricist debate as much as anyone, but this has nothing to do with the topic.



Not really. Rather, it's just saying that it's reasonable to assume patterns continue indefinitely unless you have evidence that they don't. That doesn't do anything to eliminate either the search for evidence or the appeal that such evidence can have.

You skipped over the part about needing a finite set in order to prove a negative. There is no reason to think everything has to have a cause and there is no reason to believe that the universe is not infinite.

It's called saying we don't know.

I have a different way of looking at things. I admit the possibility of God but I do not buy the notion empirically God cannot be shown to exist. It's why I am not a christian.

[mouse]

scientists never claim they have all the answers.

Really? when was the last time you picked up a science school book? show me where there is a quote of a science book saying they have no clue.

The go into great detail how the universe was a result of a huge explosion they even have art work. I suggest you read a few Science books then come back when your a little more enlightened on the subject.

they come up with those dates with several methods...

name them one by one so I can debunk them one by one.

for the universe (post bang) they use the observed rate of expansion the universe (a figure they derived with knowledge of distance of other galaxies and their relative speeds).

In theory or facts? watch how you answer that.

if they determine that the rate of expansion is actually rapidly accelerating (another possibility), the math would imply the universe could be even older, upwards of 20 billion years. they don't take random guesses,

Then how come the age of the earth has changed over the years? was it a bad guess at first? where are you getting these bull scenarios and if you believe them to be true doesn't that go against your first quote?

scientists never claim they have all the answers.

its all math

You want to talk math? Google how far the moon is drifting away from the earth each year then multiply it by 4.6 billion years and tell me how close to the earth does that put the moon.

as for the age of the earth, they know it is at least 4.4 billion years old due to radiometric age dating

we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its color, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like. Geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds.

science doesn't, nor has ever claimed to have all the answers.

Link?

only religion does

I don't support religion.

[Blake]

Well, I'm glad we all understand each other now. I definitely feel I learned a bit from your objection after seeing that both the analogies were held by the same people.

We disagree on the bold part, though. At least we do in a proximal sense. I don't believe that saying god created the universe is an explanation for how the universe works. It's one thing to look at something complex and say, "Wow, look at god's handiwork." That's what deists often did, according to that Franklin book. They took the complexity of life as proof of god's existence. I don't do that, but I can understand people thinking I do.

But what is completely different is to look at something complex and say, "There's no other explanation but to say god has created this directly. No way could any proximate mechanisms lead to this." That's how the analogy was used by opponents of evolution. They thought you could slap the "god" stamp on something and call it solved, no science necessary. I don't swing that way. Even though I believe this universe was set into motion, I do not believe there's anything about this universe that we can't learn through investigation.

If you're not looking at the complexity of life/universe, then what is making you think there is a prime mover that did all this on purpose?

[Blake]

I'm not saying a mover exists out of necessity. I am saying that I'd only belief it doesn't exist when I actually encounter a convincing argument for it.

Back to infinite regress/first cause etc

It's irrational to believe that a deity exists until someone disproves it's existence.

Spaghetti.

[Blake]

Most of his topics are baiting and he takes both positions as a matter of course.

I dunno, I guess I get a cheap thrill pointing out his contradictions and then watching the subsequent meltdowns.

and sometimes I strike gold, like the time he couldn't help but brag that he graduated magna laude from Dartmouth to try to give his post some credence.

[Blake]

Really? when was the last time you picked up a science school book? show me where there is a quote of a science book saying they have no clue.

This sounds like a good book:

Just A Theory: Exploring The Nature Of Science

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/159102...&robot_redir=1

[xmas1997]

I dunno, I guess I get a cheap thrill pointing out his contradictions and then watching the subsequent meltdowns.

and sometimes I strike gold, like the time he couldn't help but brag that he graduated magna laude from Dartmouth to try to give his post some credence.

You're still lost in your fantasies I see.
But just for you, although I know you won't be able to understand it, here is an excerpt from the internet that can be cited if necessary:

Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. According to René Descartes, rationality is built first upon the realization of the absolute truth "I think therefore I am", which requires no faith. All other rationalizations are built outward from this realization, and are subject to falsification at any time with the arrival of new evidence.

[Chinook]

You skipped over the part about needing a finite set in order to prove a negative. There is no reason to think everything has to have a cause and there is no reason to believe that the universe is not infinite.

I didn't skip over that part. It's just meaningless to the debate. No one is asserting that we'll find god, and no one is even advocating looking.

Of course there is a reason to think everything has a cause. I haven't seen something that doesn't. Have you?

The universe isn't infinite. We know how big it is. That's the whole point of the Big Bang theory. The universe actually being infinite breaks that whole idea apart.

It's called saying we don't know.

We don't know. Doesn't mean we don't have beliefs on that matter.

I have a different way of looking at things. I admit the possibility of God but I do not buy the notion empirically God cannot be shown to exist. It's why I am not a christian.

Not a bad view. In theory god could be shown to exist. I don't believe it, but I think that most folks no matter the side do.

[Chinook]

If you're not looking at the complexity of life/universe, then what is making you think there is a prime mover that did all this on purpose?

I don't see being likely that a prime mover could do this by accident. He wouldn't be the PRIME mover, since something would have to have caused him to do it.

Back to infinite regress/first cause etc

What do you mean, back to first cause? I never left that idea. That's the opposite of infinite regress, though.

It's irrational to believe that a deity exists until someone disproves it's existence.

Spaghetti.

It's irrational to believe that not being able to prove something does not exists is somehow proof that it does exist (Spaghetti). It's not irrational to supposed trends continue to the point that we'll need something at the head of the chain and that a prime mover is the likeliest thing to be there.

[DMC]

"Rationality is based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority." -same Wiki page

So Xmas needs a belief in inspiration, revelation or authority to realize that his computer is sitting there.

[spurraider21]

Really? when was the last time you picked up a science school book? show me where there is a quote of a science book saying they have no clue.

The go into great detail how the universe was a result of a huge explosion they even have art work. I suggest you read a few Science books then come back when your a little more enlightened on the subject.




name them one by one so I can debunk them one by one.


In theory or facts? watch how you answer that.



Then how come the age of the earth has changed over the years? was it a bad guess at first? where are you getting these bull scenarios and if you believe them to be true doesn't that go against your first quote?






You want to talk math? Google how far the moon is drifting away from the earth each year then multiply it by 4.6 billion years and tell me how close to the earth does that put the moon.




we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its color, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like. Geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds.





Link?



I don't support religion.

A) I pick up science books all the time. More so than at other kind I book, to this point. Plenty of unknowns.

B) I merely told you how they determine the age of the earth. I didn't say it's definitely true to the decimal. You seem to think they just barf out randomly large numbers. Estimates in the age have shifted but have been fairly
constant since radiometric dating was used. The results are repeatable.

c) I told you the method used. Please refute radio metric or carbon dating. While your at it inform me of your credentials

d) your understanding if radiometric dating is as rudimentary as robdiaz's understanding of the thery of evolution. I don't need a link to show that. One of the staples of science is to be skeptical and not to be deterred wen encountering an unknown. Scientists don't claim to know everything. Since you brought this point up, YOU should provide evidence to support your claim

[xmas1997]

According to David H. Rogstad,

Agnostic theoretical physicist and popular author, Paul Davies, is more candid than most in admitting the role that a theistic worldview plays in science (as cited here):

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physics—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal’s Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith in a PM, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are necessarily finite.

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or ), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager (it is not optional).
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
7. But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

Beliefs held “by faith” may be seen existing in a number of relationships to rationality:

* Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality.

* Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable.

* Faith as contradicting rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it interferes with our ability to think, and rationality is seen as the enemy of faith, since it interferes with our ability to believe.

As you can see there are a number of ways to view "faith", I always go back to the first view because it best fits my view of reality and not because it supports any particular religious view.

[Blake]

You're still lost in your fantasies I see.
But just for you, although I know you won't be able to understand it, here is an excerpt from the internet that can be cited if necessary:

Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. According to René Descartes, rationality is built first upon the realization of the absolute truth "I think therefore I am", which requires no faith. All other rationalizations are built outward from this realization, and are subject to falsification at any time with the arrival of new evidence.

Didn't read

[Blake]

Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal’s Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith in a PM, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are necessarily finite.

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or ), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager (it is not optional).
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
7. But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

Beliefs held “by faith” may be seen existing in a number of relationships to rationality:

* Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality.

* Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable.

* Faith as contradicting rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it interferes with our ability to think, and rationality is seen as the enemy of faith, since it interferes with our ability to believe.

As you can see there are a number of ways to view "faith", I always go back to the first view because it best fits my view of reality and not because it supports any particular religious view.

Lol pascal's wager.

why not get the insurance just in case

Fail.

[xmas1997]

Didn't read

Because you don't know HOW to read.
Not unexpected in your case, just a common ailment of yours to be laughed at again.

[Blake]

Because you don't know HOW to read.
Not unexpected in your case, just a common ailment of yours to be laughed at again.

You're behind the rest of us in this (and most) thread(s).

But bravo for educating yourself.

[xmas1997]

Anyone is welcome to define"faith" in purely "religious" terms, but all that does is "limit" that particular person's view of it, rather than define it in it's totality.

"Literally billions of ideas and beliefs can be suggested to be true. We can propose assumptions, and make eloquent arguments based on those assumptions, which will send us off in any direction we might wish to go. Every day we see people who are certain of the absolute truth of their beliefs, never realizing they have subconsciously talked themselves into accepting as fundamentally and absolutely true that which is, and must be, based on their assumptions. Thus, we can argue persuasively that we are descendants of martians, that inanimate objects talk to each other, that we really do not exist at all, etc., etc., etc. Since we cannot know whether or not something or someone exists beyond our perception, we cannot know if the wildest of ideas may in fact be true somewhere outside our current existence. Yet even though "anything" may be true, we must not allow ourselves to become casual observers applying logical arguments to first "prove", and then "disprove", fundamental beliefs about the nature and meaning of life. What we want to emphasize is that the reader should put aside all assumptions and beliefs; take a journey into their heart, mind, and soul; and then decide what they want to believe is true.

What is true is true. What then is the difference in believing something to be true, and proving something is true, if indeed the belief is true? The difference is not in the truth of the matter, for the belief itself is either true or not regardless of any belief as to its truth. Rather the difference lies in the realization that what appears absolutely true MAY not be true. That realization, and the humility that should accompany it, emphasizes the importance of reviewing one's beliefs. If we cannot prove anything, how do we determine what is true? If the best we can do is believe something is true, what good is that? The answer lies in what we just said, if what we believe to be true is true, then not being able to prove it is true is not important."

EDIT: Do you need a cite?

[xmas1997]

You're behind the rest of us in this (and most) thread(s).

But bravo for educating yourself.

As usual you have no clue of what you are talking about.
Just stay out of it if you are having so much trouble keeping up yourself.
It will save us a lot of trouble reading your nonsense.
We can't help laughing AT you though.