infinite cause verses infinite number of finite causes. - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

goober · #61 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

science has always existed. I am not sure how you can argue otherwise, it predates christianity.. science from ballistics from roman siege, to study of architectural stengths and weaknesses. As much as christianity acted as a hindrence to science and learning it also acted as a preserver, holding and mantaining librarys, teaching and essentially preserving elements of civilization through the darkages.

Galileo is considered to be the first scientist by some, Roger Bacon by others, the scientific method, discovery of truth by testing theory with experiment replaced alchemy, which relied more on philosophical musings and less on experiment.
Since the time of these men a body of Scientific knowledge has been built up, theories have come and gone, but the knowledge has remained remarkably stable.
Science makes the distinction between theory and knowledge.
We know the melting point of ice, that piece of information hasn't changed, theories about the process may have come and gone, but the knowledge of the basic facts remains intact.

Slon · #62 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

i provide 3 possible explanations and dillettante provided a forth. It is my belief that the simplest and most reasonable explanation is the third. You can believe what you want but in the absence of proof faith is a reasonable answer. Now its up to a point of a choice...
which is the most reasonable answer to you?Which is the answer you would prefer to believe?

So would it be reasonable for a person living in ancient times to believe that God makes the rain fall and the sun rise? Are you saying it is reasonable to make conclusions from ignorance just because a person has no way to scientifically rationalize something?

Quote:

if you dont want to believe in God then don't. I have just attempted to prove that it is not all that irrational to believe in one.

I'm not sure you proved anything. You gave your opinion, but your "reasoning," if it can be called that, behind it needs a little work, to say the least.

Quote:

BTW if you believe in God that created the universe by default you believe he made and sends rain to the earth. Just because science can explain how the rain comes from the clouds does not mean there was no creator who made it so.

Is your argument that "it reasonable to believe whatever hasn't been proven false?" Is this thread a joke? I can't decide between your apparent support for murdering Palestinian kids and threads like this.

SMadsen · #63 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

my understanding of philosophy is fairly limited so you might have to explain further what you mean

I was just commenting that while God is eternal and never begotten, all other things in creation have a cause because God is the ultimate "cause" of all things. Thus I don't think one who believes in God (in the Christian sense at least) could say things can have an effect without cause.

Non Sequitur, you said that "God can exist without 'cause,' but only God". Even if it's only one instance that can exist without a cause, the claim is literally that there is one thing that can exist without a cause. Hence, if one asserts that that one instance exists then something can indeed exist without a cause. To claim that nothing can exist without a cause and then claim that one thing can exist without a cause is, needless to say, contradictive.

Or, if you put it into an equation, the "one thing" will become equal to "nothing"

SMadsen · #64 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

science has always existed. I am not sure how you can argue otherwise, it predates christianity.. science from ballistics from roman siege, to study of architectural stengths and weaknesses. As much as christianity acted as a hindrence to science and learning it also acted as a preserver, holding and mantaining librarys, teaching and essentially preserving elements of civilization through the darkages.

Preserving elements of civilization through the darkages? I thought the Dark Ages were when Christianity was sweeping the continent, causing stagnation by opposing any kind of enterprise other than itself. So you're saying that Christianity did a good job of preserving what it apparantly (according to Petrarch and his contemporaries, at least) sought to destroy? Interesting.

As for science, it's my contention that the basics of science have been with us for as long as we've been able to survive. In it's simplest form, science is nothing more than gaining knowledge from practical experience (get someone to eat a plant. Does he die? No: Eat the plant. Yes: Don't eat the plant (at least not yourself)). But as for the empirical method of the natural sciences, Goober is right that it didn't get formalized before the Enlightenment, i.e. before someone dared to admit that religion was antithetical to reason.

SMadsen · #65 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

in my oppinion science should not be there to say
"Its not possible unless it is proven." It should say...
"everything is possible unless it is proven false."

Except when something can be "proven" neither "true" nor "false". Then science (scientists, i.e.) has absolutely nothing to say on the matter.

In fact, if you encounter anyone who says that science has something to say on such a matter then you know you're facing someone who hasn't got a clue what science is. For example, someone who starts "off on the assumption [that] anything is possible untill science proves it wrong"

Non Sequitur · #66 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Non Sequitur, you said that "God can exist without 'cause,' but only God". Even if it's only one instance that can exist without a cause, the claim is literally that there is one thing that can exist without a cause. Hence, if one asserts that that one instance exists then something can indeed exist without a cause. To claim that nothing can exist without a cause and then claim that one thing can exist without a cause is, needless to say, contradictive.

Or, if you put it into an equation, the "one thing" will become equal to "nothing"

ah i understand now, I just needed some clarification on how the logic worked

tiny tim · #67 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

I am the kind of person that would believe a group of people who said they saw UFO's because I believe that numbers provides the proof that is necessary. I do not need an UFO's to arrive on my doorstep to be convinced because I recognize that is to much to ask...

I believe in ghosts because many people believe in ghosts, because many people tell stories and are convinced in thier own hearts.... I dont believe that so many people would get scared for no reason at all.

I believe In God because it makes sense from a rational standpoint, and I see how many people are effected by God and prayer, I believe in Miracles because I believe in things that are unexplainable, i see and have read stories of doctors having no explanation...educated learned doctors.

I do not believe that so many people would believe these things if it were not true. At one point in time many people knew that rocks fell from the sky, but scientists would not believe it because they needed proof.
these were meterors. and it has not been that long ago since science accepted meteors as a reality. So I believe in mass witness and experiance of people is good enough without so called science.

Millions of Christians believe Jesus is the son God. Millions of Jews and Muslims do not. They cannot both be factually correct. Millions of Hindus and Buddhists believe in some form of reincarnation, millions of believers in the Abrahamic religions do not. They cannot both be factually correct. Millions of people believe in ghosts, millions do not. They cannot both be factually correct. Do you see the inherent conflict in your argument?

metalted · #68 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Preserving elements of civilization through the darkages? I thought the Dark Ages were when Christianity was sweeping the continent, causing stagnation by opposing any kind of enterprise other than itself. So you're saying that Christianity did a good job of preserving what it apparantly (according to Petrarch and his contemporaries, at least) sought to destroy? Interesting.

As for science, it's my contention that the basics of science have been with us for as long as we've been able to survive. In it's simplest form, science is nothing more than gaining knowledge from practical experience (get someone to eat a plant. Does he die? No: Eat the plant. Yes: Don't eat the plant (at least not yourself)). But as for the empirical method of the natural sciences, Goober is right that it didn't get formalized before the Enlightenment, i.e. before someone dared to admit that religion was antithetical to reason.

religion has always existed too. religion predates christianity. and you could argue that it was responsible for softening up the roman empire just a tad, ending the gladitorial battles and such. it is my understanding that the dark ages was caused by the collapse of roman civilization due to barbarian invasion. and the monasteries preserved works of literature and even the actual ability to read in these small secluded places of learning.

metalted · #69 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Except when something can be "proven" neither "true" nor "false". Then science (scientists, i.e.) has absolutely nothing to say on the matter.

In fact, if you encounter anyone who says that science has something to say on such a matter then you know you're facing someone who hasn't got a clue what science is. For example, someone who starts "off on the assumption [that] anything is possible untill science proves it wrong"

I dont believe that, there are various studies that are done on people who have spiritual gifts, outer body experiances, psychic abilities.. even methods of measuring energy, heat, that rises from places that are haunted the gets readings.

There are many reports of military personell seeing ufos, and scientists retrieving them. there was mass sightings in phoenix not to long ago and even the mayor was convinced.

There is no reason to doubt things you dont understand. if there is no proof either way, if people do believe.. I dont have to say that they are stupid if I do not know myself.

metalted · #70 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny tim

Millions of Christians believe Jesus is the son God. Millions of Jews and Muslims do not. They cannot both be factually correct. Millions of Hindus and Buddhists believe in some form of reincarnation, millions of believers in the Abrahamic religions do not. They cannot both be factually correct. Millions of people believe in ghosts, millions do not. They cannot both be factually correct. Do you see the inherent conflict in your argument?

people who dont believe just have not had any experiances. it does not matter what they think, it matters on how to explain people who do have experiances. from there you should take the assumption of "I don't know," or " its possible."

if no one believed in astroids yet every once in awhile a rock landed at someones feet and he could not convince someone that a rock landed from the sky at his feet it sets learning behind if everyone just numbly walks around saying "its not possible rocks dont come from the sky."

mass testimony is valuable in court, so it should be when researching experiances like this and the unknown.

that my opinion atleast.

IIIX · #71 (**permalink**) 10-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

I dont believe that, there are various studies that are done on people who have spiritual gifts, outer body experiances, psychic abilities.. even methods of measuring energy, heat, that rises from places that are haunted the gets readings.

It's been shown that shamans don't really move out of their body when they use magic mushrooms... well, at least in some cases (a negative can never be proven, so obviously it hasn't been proven wrong in all cases).

Science now offers a variety of explanations for such "surnatural" events, most of which are psychological. It's more reasonable, in my opinion, to go with the scientific explanations over mere rumors... One of the reasons which discredits rumors (compared to scientific explanation) is that rumors typically contradict each other (this is the case with all religions). This point has been raised previously.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode