I notice many people suggesting that one who believes in God is simply lazy, they don't seek any higher understanding. Well, I used to believe the same thing many years ago. So I searched and search for this greater understanding, and these different paths did lead me to some great knowledge.
But even after all I learned, I can't even answer the simple question of , what are your thinking as you read this?
I may think I know a lot, but that's actually a funny statement when I consider the immense complexity of the universe. Humans will always be ignorant to a degree. There will never be some 'master equation' that can explain everything in the universe. At best, you can have reductionist equations which are useful for describing parts of reality, but nothing can ever describe it wholly.
This realization alone points me to the belief that there must of been an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe, call it God.
Agreed though, that ignorance can obviously lead to some destructive beliefs in society, so practicing skepticism can be beneficial.
But there never will not be a degree of ignorance when it comes to the great philosophical questions, therefore I highly doubt there will ever be a world where no one believes in a God, even if that idea of God changes over time, and rightfully so.
EDIT: Split from 'Why God' thread as this would have derailed that thread which is a discussion on the naturalistic explaination for human creation of the God concept. Not a debate about the existance, or not, of God.. - Tank
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 03:59:18 PMHumans will always be ignorant to a degree. There will never be some 'master equation' that can explain everything in the universe. At best, you can have reductionist equations which are useful for describing parts of reality, but nothing can ever describe it wholly.
This realization alone points me to the belief that there must of been an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe, call it God.
Well that sounds kind of wacky to me.
I had chicken for dinner tonight, wasn't cooked right, a bit dry.
This leads me to believe there's a special fowl available to those who seek it, call it super chicken.
Quote from: Light... I highly doubt there will ever be a world where no one believes in a God, even if that idea of God changes over time, and rightfully so.
In other words, no-one has ever found the truth about this entity, and no-one ever will, but people will continue to believe in what they don't understand.
I'm afraid you're right, horrifying though that prospect is.
Heh, I don't find that 'horrifying'. Yes, there are some religious fanatics out there. But I think most people don't take religions scripture so literally. It's healthy to be skeptical, to have an open-mind. But at the same time, I think it's almost arrogance to believe humans can 'know everything' so to speak.
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
So then , there will always be a degree of ignorance, and so religious ideas, will never go away, although yes, people shouldn't take all of their scriptures so literally...
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 03:59:18 PMHumans will always be ignorant to a degree. There will never be some 'master equation' that can explain everything in the universe. At best, you can have reductionist equations which are useful for describing parts of reality, but nothing can ever describe it wholly.
This realization alone points me to the belief that there must of been an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe, call it God.
Well that sounds kind of wacky to me.
I had chicken for dinner tonight, wasn't cooked right, a bit dry.
This leads me to believe there's a special fowl available to those who seek it, call it super chicken.
The restaurant I went to last night must have been hoarding those super chickens. I have never had such a moist, delicious chicken that wasn't undercooked.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PMI remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
It's arrogance or denial to be working on figuring out why the universe began? That doesn't make any sense in terms of arrogance, because it's humble to say that one doesn't know but is working on it. It also doesn't make sense in terms of denial because the person claiming that they don't yet know but are working on it, unless they're not working on it and they do know, this is not denial.
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PMI remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
It's arrogance or denial to be working on figuring out why the universe began? That doesn't make any sense in terms of arrogance, because it's humble to say that one doesn't know but is working on it. It also doesn't make sense in terms of denial because the person claiming that they don't yet know but are working on it, unless they're not working on it and they do know, this is not denial.
I don't believe the person was actually working on it. So then, when they made the statement, I think it had to be either denial of the impossibility of such an answer, or just arrogance that science could find the answer, regardless of how impossible it may seem.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PMBut at the same time, I think it's almost arrogance to believe humans can 'know everything' so to speak.
But making stuff up is what? pious?
Who is believing humans can 'know everything' anyway.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
I find the dismissive laughter of ignorant fools particularly disturbing.
Right before I found Godless, I had been reading and studying some of the easier points of biology and physics. Your argument about the complexity of the universe demanding an intelligent creator is the one I was using. I also threw in the argument about how the chances of everything happening the way it did seem so remote a God must have done it. Then I read some of the parts of biology and physics with longer words, which took me much longer because of having to look things up in a dictionary, not finding it there, and then having to google the same words. Anyway...
Apparently, what happened to get Earth where it is today wasn't so special, unlikely, or even unique. It's likely happened elsewhere. The life and evolution thing had some trial and error, as well, as there were attempts after a couple billion years, then extinction, then attempt, then extinction. Was God messing up before he finally got it right, or was this just about his entertainment? Is the god that created our planet and ecosystems the same god that created those of another planet in another solar system, or are there multiple gods and each one gets its own solar system?
I'm atheist (like the kind who completely deny the existence of any gods described in the primary religions on this planet). Is it possible that there is a god out there? Like so much else in life and philosophy, it depends on how you define god. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," as Arther C. Clarke points out. There may be a sufficiently advanced race of creatures out there that has advanced technologies or abilities due to exposure to our yellow sun like flying and seeing through people's clothes. They would be gods to us, but still not the creators of the universe.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:37:50 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PMI remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
It's arrogance or denial to be working on figuring out why the universe began? That doesn't make any sense in terms of arrogance, because it's humble to say that one doesn't know but is working on it. It also doesn't make sense in terms of denial because the person claiming that they don't yet know but are working on it, unless they're not working on it and they do know, this is not denial.
I don't believe the person was actually working on it. So then, when they made the statement, I think it had to be either denial of the impossibility of such an answer, or just arrogance that science could find the answer, regardless of how impossible it may seem.
The scientist said "we're" (at least in the quote you provided), and being that many a scientist are working on it, no matter when the scientist made the statement, it's still true. The scientist did not make the claim that science could find the answer, only that they were working on it. So your statements still don't make sense in terms of arrogance or denial.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 04:39:07 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PMBut at the same time, I think it's almost arrogance to believe humans can 'know everything' so to speak.
But making stuff up is what? pious?
Who is believing humans can 'know everything' anyway.
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 04:42:46 PM
The scientist said "we're" (at least in the quote you provided), and being that many a scientist are working on it, no matter when the scientist made the statement, it's still true. The scientist did not make the claim that science could find the answer, only that they were working on it. So your statements still don't make sense in terms of arrogance or denial.
Why would anyone actually believe they can answer such a question with science? Science is not concerned with such questions as why the universe exists. So, people are either in denial of this , or it was just an expression of arrogance.
Quote from: fester30 on December 23, 2011, 04:41:50 PM
Right before I found Godless,
I'm sure whatever you said after that was Fester grade excellence but there is a thread that has been waiting for you contribution.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8902.15
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 04:39:07 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PMBut at the same time, I think it's almost arrogance to believe humans can 'know everything' so to speak.
But making stuff up is what? pious?
Who is believing humans can 'know everything' anyway.
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a make up a concept such as God.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F9161%2Ffixed.gif&hash=c2ae6461414c75393dff00d7891dd29057839d2b)
Which is more probable?
A) That God(s) actually exist
B) Terrified apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous, filled the gaps in their understanding with wishful thinking?
I'll go with B thank you very much ;D
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
If I actually posted what I thought whilst reading that I would have been banned outright. In fact I am finding it very hard not to break the civility rule recently.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
I consider the inability to not know a flaw, a big ugly leading to foolishness and worse flaw.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 04:42:46 PM
The scientist said "we're" (at least in the quote you provided), and being that many a scientist are working on it, no matter when the scientist made the statement, it's still true. The scientist did not make the claim that science could find the answer, only that they were working on it. So your statements still don't make sense in terms of arrogance or denial.
Why would anyone actually believe they can answer such a question with science? Science is not concerned with such questions as why the universe exists. So, people are either in denial of this , or it was just an expression of arrogance.
There is no reason to beleive one can answer the question, either answer it or keep trying to answer it, no need for belief. Repeating that it is arrogance (in spite of what arrogance means) or denial (in spite of what denial means), without actually addressing the problems I pointed out, is useless.
Is it arrogance to say that one might be able to figure something out, or is it arrogance to say that something cannot be figured out without even trying? I think you'll find that by all definitions of arrogance and denial, that your statements saying that it's impossible to know are far more arrogant and in denial than the quote you provided.
Quote from: Crow on December 23, 2011, 04:53:42 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
If I actually posted what I thought whilst reading that I would have been banned outright. In fact I am finding it very hard not to break the civility rule recently.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popartuk.com%2Fg%2Fl%2Flggn0527%2Bkeep-calm-carry-on-poster.jpg&hash=79e7c94ea9cebfae6d0485d8abf203c79c3b86fd)
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
There is no reason to beleive one can answer the question, either answer it or keep trying to answer it, no need for belief. Repeating that it is arrogance (in spite of what arrogance means) or denial (in spite of what denial means), without actually addressing the problems I pointed out, is useless.
Is it arrogance to say that one might be able to figure something out, or is it arrogance to say that something cannot be figured out without even trying? I think you'll find that by all definitions of arrogance and denial, that your statements saying that it's impossible to know are far more arrogant and in denial than the quote you provided.
Ok. How about, maybe not arrogance or denial, but a misunderstanding of the limits of sciences applications?
BTW it was Richard Dawkins who made the comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGZyhLgZ5f8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGZyhLgZ5f8) 24:13
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 04:55:57 PM
There is no reason to beleive one can answer the question, either answer it or keep trying to answer it, no need for belief. Repeating that it is arrogance (in spite of what arrogance means) or denial (in spite of what denial means), without actually addressing the problems I pointed out, is useless.
Is it arrogance to say that one might be able to figure something out, or is it arrogance to say that something cannot be figured out without even trying? I think you'll find that by all definitions of arrogance and denial, that your statements saying that it's impossible to know are far more arrogant and in denial than the quote you provided.
Ok. How about, maybe not arrogance or denial, but a misunderstanding of the limits of sciences applications?
At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.
Quote from: Crow on December 23, 2011, 04:53:42 PM
If I actually posted what I thought whilst reading that I would have been banned outright. In fact I am finding it very hard not to break the civility rule recently.
Ye, I pity you plain spoken folk.
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.
When trying to describe how things work, yes, I agree, that can be a useful application of science. But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:15:07 PMBut when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.
I always had a problem with the the world is big where did it come from - god - so where did god come from?
A game of wordplay between philosophers? na it still doesn't satisfy.
And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'. Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it. But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions. Not something science will ever answer.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:15:07 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.
When trying to describe how things work, yes, I agree, that can be a useful application of science. But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.
At the moment. But there is no reason to dismiss the possibility that rigorous observation (science) cannot answer the 'why' of some questions. In the past (and some primitive places even today) people explain illness as possession by spirits. We now know this is not the case. But at the time that this 'belief' was firmly held to be true, the people who believed it would have said the 'why' was beyond their understanding and would be forever. They were wrong.
Scientific investigation has proved itself capable of answering 'why' questions in the past by simply observing, hypothesising, testing and refinement. There is no reason to exclude scientific investigation from 'why' questions, unless one is personally worried what might be found. If one believes in God science is simply the investigation of His creation and can therefore not damage our understanding of Him only enhance it. This view was the foundation of the early triumphs of scientists that were Muslims. Their particular world view held that to discover how the world worked was a good thing. If something they found contradicted doctrine, the doctrine was wrong because the doctrine was a human creation and thus subject to potential error. However in the Christian world doctrine was held to be infallible, hence the persecution of the likes of Galileo.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:15:07 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
At least one of the applications of science is to understand how things work, it seems perfectly applicable to the beginning of the universe. As for the limits though, I have no idea what you mean by that.
When trying to describe how things work, yes, I agree, that can be a useful application of science. But when you get into questions such as why is there any universe at all, it's not something science is designed to answer, this is philosophical.
Then it all depends on how the person you quoted meant with the "why" word doesn't it? To just suppose the person meant it the way that you have decided it meant just because of this one problem you have falls into a Straw Man fallacy. When someone asks, "why did that apple fall to the ground?" they're most likely not looking for a philosophical answer. At least not in all the conversations I've had with people, most of the time when people ask such a question, they're asking because they want to know the answer or they know (or at least think they know) the answer.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'. Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it. But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions. Not something science will ever answer.
I agree that with the normal uses of "how" and "why" in this context that it doesn't matter much, but I don't agree with you that science will never find an answer to the question. How do you know that science will never find the answer?
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:30:36 PMBut, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions. Not something science will ever answer.
Maybe not.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'. Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it. But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions. Not something science will ever answer.
So now you are claiming infallibility, premonition and/or omniscience? The only thing one can claim about the ability of institutionalised curiosity (science) is that at the moment it has no solid theory of what preceded the 'Big Bang'. That's it, end of story, one can't presume to know what one don't know through evidence.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
Arrogance? Really?
I always thought people claiming to know what they don't to be arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that you don't know something, but are trying to figure it out to the best of your ability.
I don't know, science has only a few models to explain portions of reality, but I know that there was a super intelligence that created the universe and has a special place for me in it (for some theists).Do you really wonder why many people find that sort of statement laughable? Hardly impressive.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 23, 2011, 07:38:59 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
Arrogance? Really?
I always thought people claiming to know what they don't to be arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that you don't know something, but are trying to figure it out to the best of your ability.
I don't know, science has only a few models to explain portions of reality, but I know that there was a super intelligence that created the universe and has a special place for me in it (for some theists).
Do you really wonder why many people find that sort of statement laughable? Hardly impressive.
It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:54:03 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 23, 2011, 07:38:59 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I remember hearing a scientist say once, 'we don't know why the universe began but we're working on that', I couldn't help but laugh. You think you're going to find an answer as to why the universe began or exists with science? Either that's arrogance or denial.
Arrogance? Really?
I always thought people claiming to know what they don't to be arrogant. There is no arrogance in saying that you don't know something, but are trying to figure it out to the best of your ability.
I don't know, science has only a few models to explain portions of reality, but I know that there was a super intelligence that created the universe and has a special place for me in it (for some theists).
Do you really wonder why many people find that sort of statement laughable? Hardly impressive.
It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.
Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.
Quote from: Light
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 07:55:46 PM
It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.
Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.
Ok. But, I think it's reasonable to say that certain questions are inherently beyond the limits of scientific understanding, such as 'why or how the cosmos came into existence'.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
Quote from: Light
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 07:55:46 PM
It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.
Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.
Ok. But, I think it's reasonable to say that certain questions are inherently beyond the limits of scientific understanding, such as 'why or how the cosmos came into existence'.
I'll give you that maybe some questions are currently beyond the limits of science, but because the limits of science are always growing, I think it would be unreasonable to say that something will always be beyond the limits of science.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
Quote from: Light
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 07:55:46 PM
It's no more laughable to me than believing one can answer a philosophical question using the scientific method.
Any philosophical question worth asking may, in due course, fall under the perview of the scientific method.
Ok. But, I think it's reasonable to say that certain questions are inherently beyond the limits of scientific understanding, such as 'why or how the cosmos came into existence'.
Obviously I don't agree ;D
The reason I don't agree is the progress of our understanding of the natural world over the last 200/300 years. There are questions being answered now that we could not even have conceived of asking 100 years ago. Superstitious world views have continuously been eroded in the face of hard science. I see no reason why these conditions will change. You may be right that the reason behind our existence will remain forever beyond our understanding; but forever is a long time. Superstition has ruled humankind ever since the first human described a bad dream to another human. I think we have 100,000 years or so before the scientific method can have been considered to have had a fair run at the ultimate question, and to dismiss the possibility that it may answer the ultimate question smacks a bit of protectionism.
Quote from: Davin on December 23, 2011, 05:35:25 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
And btw, I can already imagine some people criticizing me as misquoting Dawkins because he actually used the word 'how' not 'why'. Well , I didn't remember his exact words when I originally posted on it. But, it doesn't matter since asking either how or why the cosmos came into existence are still philosophical questions. Not something science will ever answer.
I agree that with the normal uses of "how" and "why" in this context that it doesn't matter much, but I don't agree with you that science will never find an answer to the question. How do you know that science will never find the answer?
Because you're getting into a question that is beyond experimentation, observation/prediction, so then not totally scientific.
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 01:02:47 AM
Because you're getting into a question that is beyond experimentation, observation/prediction, so then not totally scientific.
The short answer to those questions is "I don't know".
Is there life on other planets? We don't know. There is no reason we know of for it NOT to exist out there, and it sort of does exist here, so why not..? But the hard fact here and now is that we do not know.
What was there "before" the Big Bang? Same answer. We don't know. We can speculate and hypothesize, but that does not change the fact.
"I don't know" is a good enough answer. From there, we can look for a better one(s), but "I don't know" will remain the answer until proven otherwise.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.
I don't think it is arrogant at all for science to try to find the answers to everything...it is arrogant to claim to have special knowledge of what can and cannot be known
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 01:12:57 AM
I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.
But it's the season to be jolly, for holly and other things that end in olly.
Have a lolly.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjE9OY.png&hash=bd82485cbb3e12448339e4b7807dc5b6c72a59cc)
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 01:12:57 AM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.
I don't think it is arrogant at all for science to try to find the answers to everything...it is arrogant to claim to have special knowledge of what can and cannot be known
Really?
everything? So science you believe can one day answer something like why you are who you are? There's going to be a mathematical formula one day that completely describes Whitney?
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:09:26 AM
Really? everything? So science you believe can one day answer something like why you are who you are? There's going to be a mathematical formula one day that completely describes Whitney?
...Because mathematics is the only science out there, yes? ::)
Science can provide a nice enough explanation for why a person is who and what the person is at current level, you know.
Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:15:22 AM
Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....
...How is math the founding block of psychology? History? Linguistics?
Quote from: Asmodean on December 24, 2011, 04:28:03 AM
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:15:22 AM
Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....
...How is math the founding block of psychology? History? Linguistics?
It's not. But, I don't see any of those disciplines leading to some all-encompassing theory to describe any individual either. I think a lot of truth about one's self is a personal discovery, not something that can every be fully described by some simple theory or book.
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:09:26 AM
Quote from: Whitney on December 24, 2011, 01:12:57 AM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
I think it is folly to shove god into knowledge gaps...it doesn't make god any more real and doesn't make us any more knowledgeable.
I don't think it is arrogant at all for science to try to find the answers to everything...it is arrogant to claim to have special knowledge of what can and cannot be known
Really? everything? So science you believe can one day answer something like why you are who you are? There's going to be a mathematical formula one day that completely describes Whitney?
I said TRY....I didn't say what was actually achievable
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:34:55 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 24, 2011, 04:28:03 AM
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:15:22 AM
Well, they're pretty much founded on math, so....
...How is math the founding block of psychology? History? Linguistics?
It's not. But, I don't see any of those disciplines leading to some all-encompassing theory to describe any individual either. I think a lot of truth about one's self is a personal discovery, not something that can every be fully described by some simple theory or book.
If you want to understand something about astronomy, such as the process of creation of this universe, you will need an understanding of physics, and therefore mathematics.
If you want to understand why a person is who and what (s)he is, you will need an understanding of medicine, therein genetics and psychology.
You don't need an all-encompassing theory based on a single school of science - you can use compound theories, with foundations in several scientific disciplines to explain something that crosses them as accurately as possible.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 24, 2011, 04:39:38 AM
If you want to understand why a person is who and what (s)he is, you will need an understanding of medicine, therein genetics and psychology.
Ok. Or, you could just ask them about themselves. That works too a lot of times.....
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:42:15 AM
Ok. Or, you could just ask them about themselves. That works too a lot of times.....
Yes. Then they will usually tell you something along the lines of:
"I am the sum of my parts", where parts are genetics, life experiences and the like.
OR they can start spouting some drivel about how some obscure deity made them that way... Bullshit, of course.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 24, 2011, 04:44:50 AM
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:42:15 AM
Ok. Or, you could just ask them about themselves. That works too a lot of times.....
Yes. Then they will usually tell you something along the lines of:
"I am the sum of my parts", where parts are genetics, life experiences and the like.
OR they can start spouting some drivel about how some obscure deity made them that way... Bullshit, of course.
You're looking too deep into my comment. I'm talking about simple questions, like, 'what's your favorite hobby'. So then you know something about them. Doesn't necessarily have to be looking for an absolute truth.
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:48:52 AM
You're looking too deep into my comment. I'm talking about simple questions, like, 'what's your favorite hobby'. So then you know something about them. Doesn't necessarily have to be looking for an absolute truth.
Oh, that! Well, when you ask a question where the accuracy of the answer given is of little to no consequence and/or interest to you, you can just consider trusting that the answer provided is accurate. Of course, everyone lies, so once in a while that Star Wars fan you meet in a cafe and later sleep with will turn out to hate Star Wars.
hehe. I don't where this convo is going anymore.
Quote from: Light on December 24, 2011, 04:58:47 AM
hehe. I don't where this convo is going anymore.
Well, let's see. Where did it start...
You said you know a lot of things. Then alluded to not being able to know everything. And from not knowing everything, a realization to you, prompts you to...contradict yourself by saying:
QuoteThis realization alone points me to the belief that there must of been an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe, call it God.
QuoteAgreed though...practicing skepticism can be beneficial.
So far, I have not seen the benefit of your skepticism.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
This is a manipulative tactic. Acknowledge ignorance (everybody can be said to be ignorant in some things, some people more than others), and then accept a non testable, non measurable idea that is god created everything. That's just wrong. One phrase that I've used more than once when talking to a theist is that I will base my beliefs on what I know, not on what I don't. ::)
Sorry, but that fails. The right way is the other way round, show why people should believe in a god based on something more substantial. Pushing ignorance is a way to get people to succumb to peer pressure and authority, because then you're more likely to acknowledge false authorities and trust what they say, even if you don't see it yourself.
You probably aren't being intentionally manipulative, but just thought I'd throw that out there, hopefully causing you to reflect on your approach a bit more.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
You acknowledge the limits of knowledge but still demand answers.
You don't have to make something up yourself, there are plenty of made up answers, just grab one off the shelf. These answers may feel right, they were made up by people with the same fears and needs for solace, that's why they feel right. If many people are willing to accept the existence of a protective god it does nothing to prove god, it just illustrates a characteristic of human nature.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 25, 2011, 04:32:10 AM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
Making stuff up has nothing to do with my original point. It's the acknowledgement on the limits of knowledge, which can then lead people to believe in a concept such as God.
You acknowledge the limits of knowledge but still demand answers.
{snip}
And Light is quite happy to make up wild arse assertions about what happens beyond his own stated limits of knowledge! The very definition of hypocrisy. If one acknowledges there is a limit to knowledge the only rational/reasonable/possible world view is that of a defacto atheist (6 on the Dawkins scale).