Taking Science on Faith

[Lefty 0]

Quote

The only available conclusion is nothing, since there is no evidence of anything.

faith
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Like I said, you answered your own question.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

The only available conclusion is nothing, since there is no evidence of anything.

_______________________________________

How can you be so close minded when so little is know about the universe we find ourselves in? 95% of the energy and matter is still yet to be identified. There is the possibility of other dimensions predicted in the string theory. Who knows how the Large Hadron Collider and the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope , coming on line in 2008, will rewrite physics as some
predict. These are just a few examples of the many gaping unknowns in the physical sciences. The essence of life, self consciousness, and the soul are still total mysteries.


.
.

I am not being closed minded. I am waiting for evidence before I say there is life after death.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

The only available conclusion is nothing, since there is no evidence of anything.

faith
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Like I said, you answered your own question.

You are misusing the definition of faith.
You seem to think that the inverse of the definition of faith is also faith.

2. belief that is not based on proof

inverse = Non belief that is based on the lack of proof


Not believing in something because there is no evidence is not faith.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

How can you be so close minded [emphasis nerdgirl] when so little is know about the universe we find ourselves in?

ad Hominem flag>

Did you really mean to imply that if someone else doesn’t agree with you that person is closed minded?

Quote

95% of the energy and matter is still yet to be identified. There is the possibility of other dimensions predicted in the string theory. Who knows how the Large Hadron Collider and the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope, coming on line in 2008, will rewrite physics as some predict. These are just a few examples of the many gaping unknowns in the physical sciences.

Yes. Yes, there are unknowns and undiscovered. Science is the methodology. New instrumentation as you describe will allow us to extend our understanding within the physical realm that has been limited by our biological construction. We can't "see" or "hear" (w/out technical imaging equipment) in the X-ray or microwave spectrum but those parts of the EM spectrum were there before they were "discovered" and understood.

Actually string theory is currently being more hotly contested than anthropogenic climate change, e.g., “String Theory Smackdown” and “String Theory, With No Holds Barred” and “ 'The Trouble with Physics' Oxford Debate.”

Quote

The essence of life, self consciousness, and the soul are still total mysteries.

The first two … well, sort of.

Why does life exist?
Because carbon is small … & I’m not being completely flippant: electronegativity – can relatively easily, but not too easily, make & break covalent bonds; electron hybrid structure – can make lots of different types of bonds, with different strengths, and in different orientations.

Also shift to an oxidizing versus reducing (hydrogen) atmosphere (which has recent scientific contestations, not sure how credible or dubious merit), distance of Earth from Sol, etc.

What is self-consciousness? Or even consciousness?
Phenomenologically, yes that still debated – because it’s philosophy.
Cognitive sciences are offering neurochemical and neurobiological clues to understand how the human brain, with its 10^10 neurons & 10^14 neural connections (probably an underestimation), constructs consciousness.
It’s not a very romantic or idealistic way to look at it … & it removes some of the ‘specialness’ of humans on which much of Judeo-Christian faith is predicated.
And then there’s AI.

Neither are total mysteries.

The nature of the soul is the realm of theologians, mystics, madman … and old lovers who still find desire, bliss, and solace in each other’s arms.
VR/Marg

p.s. Andy9o8 – Really enjoyed your posts in this thread!

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[maadmax 0]

Utter nonsense. That kind of circular, self-enabling argument can be applied to any conceivable fantasy. "How do you know the Dalai Lama is not the reincarnation of Genghis Khan's pet cat? Millions of people believe it, but you say No. Well, you can't support that statement, so it requires pure faith."

Once again, the word "faith" is being mis-used by being turned on its head.

______________________________________________

I am in complete agreement with you! The reality atheists have concluded is a faith based circular argument supported by pure faith. I like that, thanks.


.

[maadmax 0]

Actually, what happens to a person after death is not "anybody's guess"; it's understood pretty well -it shuts down, and unless it's very well preserved in some fashion, its tissues physically degrade. And there's a basic understanding of the correlation of consciousness with neural activity of the brain; and when the brain shuts down and degrades, the neural activity and its electrical impulses eventually cease. The conclusion that there is "nothing beyond that" is not faith, it is an extrapolation from knowledge and evidence.

___________________________________________

You absolutely can not support the " nothing beyond that" conclusion. The cessation of electrical activity in a dead brain could be no different than what occurs to the intellect coming from a cell phone when the power source is disconnected. I have no proof and neither do you, except of course faith and belief.

. .

[billvon 3,099]

>I am in complete agreement with you!

Ah, the intentional misunderstanding! An excellent Speaker's Corner tactic. Not quite as good as "I know you are but what am I" but better than the "rubber and glue" taunt.

It does not require faith to believe that gravity works. It does require faith to believe you go to heaven after you die. You can test one; you can't test the other.

[maadmax 0]

-Did you really mean to imply that if someone else doesn’t agree with you that person is closed minded?


No. I mean someone who has their mind made up about something, when they can't possibly have all the facts. And no I don't have all the facts, they are as yet unknown.

_______________________________________


- Actually string theory is currently being more hotly contested than anthropogenic climate change,

Yes I know but it still is an intriguing theory.

________________________________________


-The nature of the soul is the realm of theologians, mystics, madman … and old lovers who still find desire, bliss, and solace in each other’s arms.


I agree, but I couldn't help throwing it in.

____________________________________

-p.s. Andy9o8 – Really enjoyed your posts in this thread .

Agreed

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Actually, what happens to a person after death is not "anybody's guess"; it's understood pretty well -it shuts down, and unless it's very well preserved in some fashion, its tissues physically degrade. And there's a basic understanding of the correlation of consciousness with neural activity of the brain; and when the brain shuts down and degrades, the neural activity and its electrical impulses eventually cease. The conclusion that there is "nothing beyond that" is not faith, it is an extrapolation from knowledge and evidence.

___________________________________________

You absolutely can not support the " nothing beyond that" conclusion. The cessation of electrical activity in a dead brain could be no different than what occurs to the intellect coming from a cell phone when the power source is disconnected. I have no proof and neither do you, except of course faith and belief.

. .

The only reasonable conclusion is nothing. Why because there is no evidence to suggest any thing different. You imagine something different. You base it on nothing. Now tell me which makes more sense.

[jakee 1,586]

Quote

You absolutely can not support the " nothing beyond that" conclusion. The cessation of electrical activity in a dead brain could be no different than what occurs to the intellect coming from a cell phone when the power source is disconnected.

When you switch a cell phone off it doesn't deteriorate. When you switch a brain off it starts deteriorating immediately.

A better analogy would be a cell phone that has been switched off and dumped in an acid bath. Whatever 'intellect' it had is not coming back.

Quote

I have no proof and neither do you, except of course faith and belief

Wrong, they are two very different things. There is no evidence that any consciousness lives on after death. It is very different to conclude that therefore nothing lives on after death than it is to conclude that something very specific lives on after death and that something very specific happens to that thing. One is based on obversable fact, the other is an invented fantasy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

There currently is no evidence of anything other then a decomposing corpse. As far as anyone can tell there is no life after death.

In the gospels there are first hand accounts of a resurrected Christ. A first hand account is considered evidence in a court of law. It is not scientific evidence but a witness account is used for discovery of the truth. So the truth according to the eyewitnesses in the gospels is there is life after death.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

There currently is no evidence of anything other then a decomposing corpse. As far as anyone can tell there is no life after death.

In the gospels there are first hand accounts of a resurrected Christ. A first hand account is considered evidence in a court of law. It is not scientific evidence but a witness account is used for discovery of the truth. So the truth according to the eyewitnesses in the gospels is there is life after death.

How do you know they are first hand accounts? Did you interview these people who witnessed this resurection? I don't know what court you are talking about,
but I don't know of any that would accept a written account that can not be verified as evidence of anything. Does that mean the Iliad is evidence of the Greek gods? Your "evidence" is very questionable at best.

[DZJ 0]

Do you know any court of law that would admit evidence that was two thousand years old and had been translated and retranslated countless times?

[kallend 2,142]

Quote

Quote

There currently is no evidence of anything other then a decomposing corpse. As far as anyone can tell there is no life after death.

In the gospels there are first hand accounts of a resurrected Christ. A first hand account is considered evidence in a court of law. It is not scientific evidence but a witness account is used for discovery of the truth. So the truth according to the eyewitnesses in the gospels is there is life after death.

It's a pity the gospels contradict each other so much, then. Kind of impeaches them as valid evidence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

intellect coming from a cell phone

OK I can't help it. I have to comment on this little gem.


Do you really believe a cell phone has "intellect"?? You just compared a human to a cell phone? This really causes me to question your intelligence.

[billvon 3,099]

>In the gospels there are first hand accounts of a resurrected Christ.
>A first hand account is considered evidence in a court of law. It is not
>scientific evidence . . .

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountains
Theres more than one answer to these questions, pointing in a crooked line
And the less I seek a source for some definitives - the closer I am to fine

[wmw999 2,577]

Quote

inverse = Non belief that is based on the lack of proof
Not believing in something because there is no evidence is not faith.

And there's a difference between lack of belief based on lack of proof, and disbelief based on lack of proof.

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Really. One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God), the other is simply an assertion about one's own belief.

I'll suggest that disbelief based on lack of proof is closer to faith than lack of belief. After all, I've never been to Idaho, but that doesn't mean I don't think it exists.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

inverse = Non belief that is based on the lack of proof
Not believing in something because there is no evidence is not faith.

And there's a difference between lack of belief based on lack of proof, and disbelief based on lack of proof.

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Really. One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God), the other is simply an assertion about one's own belief.

I'll suggest that disbelief based on lack of proof is closer to faith than lack of belief. After all, I've never been to Idaho, but that doesn't mean I don't think it exists.

Wendy W.

Your Idaho analogy screwed up your whole arguement. Even if you have never been to Idaho there is plenty of evidence it's existence. The same can not be said for God. Therefore if you say you don't believe God exists it's not the same as saying that you don't believe Idaho exists.

[wmw999 2,577]

Sorry. The Idaho argument was intended as a joke. I'll admit I used to joke that Idaho didn't really exist.

I'll try to do better next time; more smilies. But my point that asserting that something does NOT exist is just as potentially disprovable as asserting that something does exist.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

Yeah that would be true assuming that there is any amount of evidence available. Not so when concerning something that has no evidence available at all anywere.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Really. One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God), the other is simply an assertion about one's own belief.

I've been down this road before with those of the fantical form of the religion of atheism - have fun, they really hate this argument. Even if it is dead on accurate.

Ignorant Apatheticism is the only honest belief system.

Edit: although militant anti-bobism gets you into better parties

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Quote

One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God)

She qualified her statement to exclude religion so it really isn't the same as your arguments.

If there is no evidence of God or life after death then why would anyone believe it?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In the gospels there are first hand accounts of a resurrected Christ. A first hand account is considered evidence in a court of law. It is not scientific evidence but a witness account is used for discovery of the truth.

Actually, a court would strike this evidence. For the following reasons:

1) It's hearsay. hearsay is an out-of-court statement, used in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The out of court statement? Jesus ascended and was resurrected. Well, the gospels need to say this IN court.

2) The gospels is a book - it cannot be cross-examined. Learned treatises are generally excluded because of this. I cannot enter a book on how to perform a fasciotomy because I should have a doctor testify about how to do it. Doctors may RELY on the book, but the book itself cannot speak.

3) The gospels is a secondhand account. The gospels provide an acount of the firsthand accounts. Well, we need to have those percipient witnesses testify. Mark has a firsthand account, which he tells the gospels, thus a secondhand account. Thus, multiple hearsay.

4) The gospels are not sworn testimony, and thus cannot be entered into evidence as former testimony of an unavailable witness.

So, no, as a matter of law it cannot be used.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,577]

Quote

If there is no evidence of God or life after death then why would anyone believe it?

Because by believing it my life is richer. I choose to believe that there is a God, and that there is a spiritual life. I realize I can be wrong, but if I am, well, then I'll be just as dead as you. And if I'm right, then I've had moments where I felt I was communing with something that is good, and that's greater than I am, and I still don't know what's coming after, and I'm OK with that.

Deuce said something about belief, that it's pure value-add. Nothing is subtracted from my life because I choose to believe in God. It's a different world from the here-and-now, and sometimes I feel as though I can feel its influence in hard-to-define ways. Can something that helps me to feel good, look inside myself for good to do and think, be all bad?

I have a problem with the religions that are of the "my way or hell" way. Sometimes I wonder if I'm wrong, and if there really is one true religion. But I think that belief in God for me is simply an acknowledgment that there is something out there that is greater than we are (greater in the sense that we're not equipped to understand it, at least not as we are now). Individual religions are manifestations of people's need to explain, in some way, that which makes them uncomfortable.

Not everyone has that need. But a lot of people do. Just ask any mother how many times she's said "because I said so" to their child

And while I said that the existence of God cannot be disproven, it's for the same reason that it cannot be proven. So it's not excluded from my argument any more than anything else that we cannot completely confirm (e.g. aliens with glowing green eyes). Things like the Loch Ness monster are a little easier to assume as fictitious simply because their domain is more limited, and we can probably map it completely pretty soon. Hard to do with the universe.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Really. One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God), the other is simply an assertion about one's own belief.

I've been down this road before with those of the fantical form of the religion of atheism - have fun, they really hate this argument. Even if it is dead on accurate.

Do you believe in the existence of square-circles? What about married-bachelors?

There's no evidence to suggest that either of these things don't exist; so ignorant apatheticism is the default position, right? But hang on a minute, neither of those things can exist by definition. Circles can't simultaneously be square and bachelors can't also be married.

Just like a square-circle can't logically exist because of mutually contradictory properties, an omnimax god also can't exist because of mutually contradictory properties. So there you go, positive disbelief without the need for faith.