Faith and science
-
Philosophical question here (but I'm not trolling -- honest!) Is it rational to believe something that you have literally no way to prove? Astronomers tell me that the universe is rapidly expanding. Space is, in fact, growing at such a staggering rate that distant galaxies are actually racing away from us at faster than the speed of light. As a consequence of this, these far reaching galaxies will eventually “disappear” from us entirely. At some point in the far-distant future (if the universe doesn’t collapse back in on itself) all but the closest galaxies will have receded entirely into the blackness of space leaving no trace of their existence to human observers. They will, at that point, be undetectable. So the obvious question for the astronomer in this distant future is simply, can you believe in the Universe? At that point there will be no way to scientifically prove the existence of the galaxies. In fact it would be quite possible for the scientists to have no knowledge of them whatsoever. They may believe with absolute certainty that we are, in fact, profoundly alone. And all the observational data would support their conclusion. In that case, the only way for someone to “know” the truth is if it were somehow preserved – in a book, for example. Scientists who studied ancient history might read the primeval text books and might somehow become convinced that the character of the authors of those books was trustworthy, and that their description of the visible universe was accurate. They would therefore know what was true (distant galaxies exist) even though they would quite literally have no way to prove it by any rigorous method. Would that be considered unscientific? Perhaps. Would it be irrational? You tell me.
-
Philosophical question here (but I'm not trolling -- honest!) Is it rational to believe something that you have literally no way to prove? Astronomers tell me that the universe is rapidly expanding. Space is, in fact, growing at such a staggering rate that distant galaxies are actually racing away from us at faster than the speed of light. As a consequence of this, these far reaching galaxies will eventually “disappear” from us entirely. At some point in the far-distant future (if the universe doesn’t collapse back in on itself) all but the closest galaxies will have receded entirely into the blackness of space leaving no trace of their existence to human observers. They will, at that point, be undetectable. So the obvious question for the astronomer in this distant future is simply, can you believe in the Universe? At that point there will be no way to scientifically prove the existence of the galaxies. In fact it would be quite possible for the scientists to have no knowledge of them whatsoever. They may believe with absolute certainty that we are, in fact, profoundly alone. And all the observational data would support their conclusion. In that case, the only way for someone to “know” the truth is if it were somehow preserved – in a book, for example. Scientists who studied ancient history might read the primeval text books and might somehow become convinced that the character of the authors of those books was trustworthy, and that their description of the visible universe was accurate. They would therefore know what was true (distant galaxies exist) even though they would quite literally have no way to prove it by any rigorous method. Would that be considered unscientific? Perhaps. Would it be irrational? You tell me.
Well, I have never proved for myself that the universe is expanding - I've only ever read it. But I kind of believe it (my doubt is the doubt of uncertainty even amongst those proposing the various theories). If, in a million years or so, there has been some cataclysmic event, we've survived the zombie apocalypse and only a single copy of New Scientist (for example) has survived, then 'belief' in the theories would be unscientific (Nobody would know if New Scientist was a religious text, kids comic or scientific journal)
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Philosophical question here (but I'm not trolling -- honest!) Is it rational to believe something that you have literally no way to prove? Astronomers tell me that the universe is rapidly expanding. Space is, in fact, growing at such a staggering rate that distant galaxies are actually racing away from us at faster than the speed of light. As a consequence of this, these far reaching galaxies will eventually “disappear” from us entirely. At some point in the far-distant future (if the universe doesn’t collapse back in on itself) all but the closest galaxies will have receded entirely into the blackness of space leaving no trace of their existence to human observers. They will, at that point, be undetectable. So the obvious question for the astronomer in this distant future is simply, can you believe in the Universe? At that point there will be no way to scientifically prove the existence of the galaxies. In fact it would be quite possible for the scientists to have no knowledge of them whatsoever. They may believe with absolute certainty that we are, in fact, profoundly alone. And all the observational data would support their conclusion. In that case, the only way for someone to “know” the truth is if it were somehow preserved – in a book, for example. Scientists who studied ancient history might read the primeval text books and might somehow become convinced that the character of the authors of those books was trustworthy, and that their description of the visible universe was accurate. They would therefore know what was true (distant galaxies exist) even though they would quite literally have no way to prove it by any rigorous method. Would that be considered unscientific? Perhaps. Would it be irrational? You tell me.
kmote00 wrote:
but I'm not trolling
This is the backroom, anything goes. People believe on faith things they cannot prove every day. Many believe live started magically from some chemicals getting together, but this can not be proved. (I must add some say it can be).
-
kmote00 wrote:
but I'm not trolling
This is the backroom, anything goes. People believe on faith things they cannot prove every day. Many believe live started magically from some chemicals getting together, but this can not be proved. (I must add some say it can be).
djj55 wrote:
this can not be proved.
I don't think it has been proven. Yet. But there is plenty of evidence - so those that understand the research and theories don't 'believe' as an act of faith, they 'believe' based on evidence.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
djj55 wrote:
this can not be proved.
I don't think it has been proven. Yet. But there is plenty of evidence - so those that understand the research and theories don't 'believe' as an act of faith, they 'believe' based on evidence.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
they 'believe' based on evidence
What one man calls evidence another will say it is not.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
they 'believe' based on evidence
What one man calls evidence another will say it is not.
Sure, but what 1,000 men call evidence and one man says is not, one can see that, in all probability, the one is a dick head. And I would argue that evidence is evidence - whether you choose to use that evidence as support for an argument or simply refute it is up to the individual, but surely then it is up to all parties to show why they think that evidence is acceptable or not. Examples: Most people agree fossils are evidence of animals long since extinct. Some argue that they were 'put there by god' or are simply not as old as others would have it. Most people believe man travelled to and walked on the moon, evidence being the number of people seeing it, evidence such as moon rocks, etc. Some argue it was all one big hoax. If one was to point out lines of electricity pylons strung across the land in the far future, and suggest that they were used for carrying electricity from place to place, a naysayer could easily say that that wasn't so - but without an alternate viable theory it's just dis-belief.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Sure, but what 1,000 men call evidence and one man says is not, one can see that, in all probability, the one is a dick head. And I would argue that evidence is evidence - whether you choose to use that evidence as support for an argument or simply refute it is up to the individual, but surely then it is up to all parties to show why they think that evidence is acceptable or not. Examples: Most people agree fossils are evidence of animals long since extinct. Some argue that they were 'put there by god' or are simply not as old as others would have it. Most people believe man travelled to and walked on the moon, evidence being the number of people seeing it, evidence such as moon rocks, etc. Some argue it was all one big hoax. If one was to point out lines of electricity pylons strung across the land in the far future, and suggest that they were used for carrying electricity from place to place, a naysayer could easily say that that wasn't so - but without an alternate viable theory it's just dis-belief.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
So if 2 million people believe something and 1 million people do not then the 1 million are "dick heads"? Do you go by region? THERE IS A GOD! As more people believe there is evidence of God than say there is not.
-
So if 2 million people believe something and 1 million people do not then the 1 million are "dick heads"? Do you go by region? THERE IS A GOD! As more people believe there is evidence of God than say there is not.
a) 1000 / 1 != 2,000,000 / 1,000,000 b) I said evidence not belief c) A survey apparently revealed 51% believed in God - not in Evidence of God, but just in God
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Sure, but what 1,000 men call evidence and one man says is not, one can see that, in all probability, the one is a dick head. And I would argue that evidence is evidence - whether you choose to use that evidence as support for an argument or simply refute it is up to the individual, but surely then it is up to all parties to show why they think that evidence is acceptable or not. Examples: Most people agree fossils are evidence of animals long since extinct. Some argue that they were 'put there by god' or are simply not as old as others would have it. Most people believe man travelled to and walked on the moon, evidence being the number of people seeing it, evidence such as moon rocks, etc. Some argue it was all one big hoax. If one was to point out lines of electricity pylons strung across the land in the far future, and suggest that they were used for carrying electricity from place to place, a naysayer could easily say that that wasn't so - but without an alternate viable theory it's just dis-belief.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Quote:
Most people agree fossils are evidence of animals long since extinct. Some argue that they were 'put there by god' or are simply not as old as others would have it.
Or that some aliens overthrew a planet of dinosaurs, were deathly allergic to the decaying dinosaurs and so they shot them all into space and ended up hitting our planet. Or, they aren't actually bones but models from some ancient civilization. Or, aliens planted them here to mess with the next "civilized" society. Or, or, or. The point is you can't prove it one way or the other. So, science gives theories, enough people agree that the theory is rational, and it becomes scientific teaching. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Most people agree fossils are evidence of animals long since extinct. Some argue that they were 'put there by god' or are simply not as old as others would have it.
Or that some aliens overthrew a planet of dinosaurs, were deathly allergic to the decaying dinosaurs and so they shot them all into space and ended up hitting our planet. Or, they aren't actually bones but models from some ancient civilization. Or, aliens planted them here to mess with the next "civilized" society. Or, or, or. The point is you can't prove it one way or the other. So, science gives theories, enough people agree that the theory is rational, and it becomes scientific teaching. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
The point is you can't prove it one way or the other
No, that's not the point at all.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
RyanDev wrote:
The point is you can't prove it one way or the other
No, that's not the point at all.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
a) 1000 / 1 != 2,000,000 / 1,000,000 b) I said evidence not belief c) A survey apparently revealed 51% believed in God - not in Evidence of God, but just in God
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
a) 1000 / 1 != 2,000,000 / 1,000,000
You are correct and very literal minded.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
b) I said evidence not belief
But I say there is evidence of God. That is the gist of this discussion.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
c) A survey apparently revealed 51% believed in God - not in Evidence of God, but just in God
I said A God. A survey would not get the various groups that have one or more god figures throughout the world.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
a) 1000 / 1 != 2,000,000 / 1,000,000
You are correct and very literal minded.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
b) I said evidence not belief
But I say there is evidence of God. That is the gist of this discussion.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
c) A survey apparently revealed 51% believed in God - not in Evidence of God, but just in God
I said A God. A survey would not get the various groups that have one or more god figures throughout the world.
djj55 wrote:
But I say there is evidence of God. That is the gist of this discussion.
Show me some evidence, please!
djj55 wrote:
said A God. A survey would not get the various groups that have one or more god figures throughout the world.
Well the survey took in something like 20 countries - and I don't think they asked "Do you believe in a christian god" but "do you believe in god" = so I would think that those believing in a deity would answer yes to that. And again, the problem with this is that lots of people believe in god because that has been their upbringing - their 'evidence' is all based on teaching (aka indoctrination) and not by looking at evidence (of which I have yet to see any)
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Philosophical question here (but I'm not trolling -- honest!) Is it rational to believe something that you have literally no way to prove? Astronomers tell me that the universe is rapidly expanding. Space is, in fact, growing at such a staggering rate that distant galaxies are actually racing away from us at faster than the speed of light. As a consequence of this, these far reaching galaxies will eventually “disappear” from us entirely. At some point in the far-distant future (if the universe doesn’t collapse back in on itself) all but the closest galaxies will have receded entirely into the blackness of space leaving no trace of their existence to human observers. They will, at that point, be undetectable. So the obvious question for the astronomer in this distant future is simply, can you believe in the Universe? At that point there will be no way to scientifically prove the existence of the galaxies. In fact it would be quite possible for the scientists to have no knowledge of them whatsoever. They may believe with absolute certainty that we are, in fact, profoundly alone. And all the observational data would support their conclusion. In that case, the only way for someone to “know” the truth is if it were somehow preserved – in a book, for example. Scientists who studied ancient history might read the primeval text books and might somehow become convinced that the character of the authors of those books was trustworthy, and that their description of the visible universe was accurate. They would therefore know what was true (distant galaxies exist) even though they would quite literally have no way to prove it by any rigorous method. Would that be considered unscientific? Perhaps. Would it be irrational? You tell me.
kmote00 wrote:
Is it rational to believe something that you have literally no way to prove?
First humans are not rational - not a single one of them. Second logic is based on beliefs. Both implicitly and explicitly. Explicitly it via assumptions although the vast majority of people believe those completely. Implicitly it comes from failure to recognize that accepting logic itself is a belief and one that cannot be proven.
kmote00 wrote:
So the obvious question for the astronomer in this distant future is simply...
Hypothetically of course it would be more realistic to consider if the question would even be relevant given that humans might no longer exist, and very likely the Earth will not and most definitely will not exist as it does now.
-
djj55 wrote:
this can not be proved.
I don't think it has been proven. Yet. But there is plenty of evidence - so those that understand the research and theories don't 'believe' as an act of faith, they 'believe' based on evidence.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
But there is plenty of evidence - so those that understand the research and theories don't 'believe' as an act of faith, they 'believe' based on evidence.
First belief is belief and most people who stand by that theory believe in it the same way other people believe in god because they have not investigated all the science associated with it in depth nor even a significant cursory survey of it. Second it is likely that a non-trivial and perhaps even significant number of people involved directly in that science are accepting, without question, some of the assumptions and even results of previous research. They haven't looked at it, don't understand it and don't question it. Thus they believe in it and nothing else. Third for a belief to be a belief there is no derivation. I believe parallel lines do not intersect in Euclidean space because it seems appropriate to do so. I also understand how the assumption, as an assumption and not a belief, impacts Euclidean geometry. Two different things. But the latter requires thought while the former is something that I simply accept day to day. Which is no different than someone else accepting day to day that a deity is impacting their life.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
But there is plenty of evidence - so those that understand the research and theories don't 'believe' as an act of faith, they 'believe' based on evidence.
First belief is belief and most people who stand by that theory believe in it the same way other people believe in god because they have not investigated all the science associated with it in depth nor even a significant cursory survey of it. Second it is likely that a non-trivial and perhaps even significant number of people involved directly in that science are accepting, without question, some of the assumptions and even results of previous research. They haven't looked at it, don't understand it and don't question it. Thus they believe in it and nothing else. Third for a belief to be a belief there is no derivation. I believe parallel lines do not intersect in Euclidean space because it seems appropriate to do so. I also understand how the assumption, as an assumption and not a belief, impacts Euclidean geometry. Two different things. But the latter requires thought while the former is something that I simply accept day to day. Which is no different than someone else accepting day to day that a deity is impacting their life.
:thumbsup:
-
djj55 wrote:
But I say there is evidence of God. That is the gist of this discussion.
Show me some evidence, please!
djj55 wrote:
said A God. A survey would not get the various groups that have one or more god figures throughout the world.
Well the survey took in something like 20 countries - and I don't think they asked "Do you believe in a christian god" but "do you believe in god" = so I would think that those believing in a deity would answer yes to that. And again, the problem with this is that lots of people believe in god because that has been their upbringing - their 'evidence' is all based on teaching (aka indoctrination) and not by looking at evidence (of which I have yet to see any)
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
No
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
No
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')