A friendly debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2011, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2011 09:42 AM by robotworld.)
RE: A friendly debate
(21-08-2011 05:14 AM)lawrence refone Wrote:  Hey guys I'm new to this forum so be patient.
But it does all seem like alot of pointless hot-air being circulated with no possible end-point in sight.

Religious belief is taken on board by people without any recourse to logic. Therefore you cannot use logic to refute or disturb their beliefs.
Religious people desperately try to justify what they intuitively know is a delusion, with their version of logic, which of course, because they are paranoid schizophrenics, is completely bizarre!

That's seems a little too extreme, doesn't it? Tongue Not all religious people are fanatics, some are interesting people and will not attempt to shove their beliefs down your throat. There are quite a number of intelligent people I know who have a religion of some sorts (for me, most of them Christian of various branches.) It's nice to talk to them to learn more! I'm still agnostic, and I hope to find the truth (which in my opinion is towards science Smile )

1) Regarding your statement "something must create something", that may not be true. At the moment of big bang, space, time, matter, energy and even the laws of physics were all created at the same time. When you go back to the beginning, the law of causality itself falls apart.
2) Regarding the "very strict category"... it's defined as "anything scientists can't explain right now", right? If so, it seems that you're using the "God of the gaps" argument.
3) Well, science may very well fail at solving many problems, but that's no excuse for not even trying Smile

1. It still begs the question, "What created that moment in the first place?" Moreover, you already stated, that "space, time, matter, energy and even the laws of physics were all created at the same time" - necessarily meaning that something created that all in that single second.
2. Do I really have to repeat this AGAIN?
3. Science fails to solve more problems than it does solve. It CANNOT explain feelings, neither can it explain ethics, tradition and culture. Do you really think Science is King?


(Regarding the 2nd point, I think he's referring to "God is the explanation for everything that cannot be fit into science" )

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 11:00 AM
RE: A friendly debate
(21-08-2011 09:20 AM)robotworld Wrote:  1. It still begs the question, "What created that moment in the first place?" Moreover, you already stated, that "space, time, matter, energy and even the laws of physics were all created at the same time" - necessarily meaning that something created that all in that single second.

And scientists reply: We're working on it, stay tuned.

Quote:3. Science fails to solve more problems than it does solve. It CANNOT explain feelings, neither can it explain ethics, tradition and culture.

Feelings: electrochemical reaction of the brain to various stimuli or lack thereof. Science already got to the point where we can simulate feelings by stimulating the right part of the brain with an electrode.

Ethics: Set of rules agreed upon by the society to prevent suffering. We are social animals with the ability of feeling empathy and exchanging ideas. Development of moral code is simple consequence of that.

Tradition: Simple manifestation of the instinctive need for stability.

Culture: Simple manifestation of creative ability and the instinct to copy behavior of others.

Any other things science supposedly can't explain?

Quote:Do you really think Science is King?

It's the only thing out there with a track record of success.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2011, 07:59 PM
RE: A friendly debate
Ah, scientism and the 'science can't explain everything' argument. Well, after pointing out that science can, in fact, figure out where emotions come from (Indeed, in women, it appears that the nipples and clitoris share a section of the brain for physical pleasure, we've not only found this out, the lucky test subject was... *ahem* quite entertained. Yes, I'm saying science has created an orgasm machine), move onto asking how religion answers these things?

How can we know religion has the answer to these problems?

And second, ask them if they know what science really is. So many people think science is test tubes of bubbling green liquid. But it's not. It's more than that. It's a very broad method for gaining knowledge.

Ask him if he has ever had a problem with getting a CD to play. Ask him if he tried putting it into another CD player, to see if it was the CD or the CD player that was broke. Tell him, that when he did that, he was doing science. He had a hypothesis. The CD player is broken, so I'll put this in another player, and it should work. Whether he confirmed or disproved his hypothesis, he got an answer, and it was via the scientific method, even if he didn't think everything out as I have listed it here.

And that is, in a nutshell, science. How is this method not inclusive of any truth? What other method has produce tangible benefits? Benefits that could only exist if the method worked. He admits that science is good for many things. And it's pretty obvious, the amount of accumulated knowledge that goes into your daily life is staggering. We're not just standing on the shoulders of giants. We're living there.

And then, ask him this. What has religion ever produced that provides an obvious benefit, that would only exist if that belief was true. You'll probably get morality, but please remind them that eastern cultures managed to not fall into ruin without their god quite nicely. And that if morality can be gained from mutually exclusive religious beliefs, then clearly, morality is obtainable regardless of the truth of those beliefs.

If religion had any real benefits, that would be unique to the one true religion, there would be no real question between theologians. But no god can claim any success or practical application compared to something even as simple as a sharpened stick. Belief in an all-powerful god can determine who you kill with that stick... but no amount of belief will get you that stick. You have to sharpen it all on your own. Using the stick-sharpening method passed down in your tribe for generations, which made it nice and pointy, without leaving it too brittle.

God is powerless. The most he can do is make you feel good. And really, sex toys do a better job of that too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sines's post
22-08-2011, 07:21 AM
RE: A friendly debate
Quote:Feelings: electrochemical reaction of the brain to various stimuli or lack thereof. Science already got to the point where we can simulate feelings by stimulating the right part of the brain with an electrode.

Ethics: Set of rules agreed upon by the society to prevent suffering. We are social animals with the ability of feeling empathy and exchanging ideas. Development of moral code is simple consequence of that.

Tradition: Simple manifestation of the instinctive need for stability.

Culture: Simple manifestation of creative ability and the instinct to copy behavior of others.

We talked about that some time ago, this was the response.

My query:
Also, I agree that science has not figured everything out yet, but just because science cannot explain something for now, doesn't mean it is a miracle of God. Over the years of development of technology, we see how scientists explained the fundamentals of Physics (Gravitation, Optics), then Chemistry (How particles interact with each other), to the present Biological Sciences and Modern Physics, as we unravel what is inside our genome or what is inside a proton. The limit of science has been broken every now and then. You mentioned laws that cannot be broken, but that's an error, for laws can be reviewed to further explain natural phenomena. Take for example the Wave-Particle Duality of photons. In the past, people viewed light as waves, and only waves, until phenomena like the Photoelectric Effect came about, which using the wave theory of light, cannot be explained. But that's not a miracle! Einstein came out with his theories on the particle nature of light and both theories are used to explain the wave-particle duality of light.

The response:
I'm sorry to say I have to discount your first half of the paragraph, because it is a stark logical fallacy in the face. It is the logical fallacy of induction, which many scientists fall prey to. Just because Science answered some questions in the past, does not mean that Science will answer all questions in the future. Moreover, it is a philosophical viewpoint that Science can never answer everything. Because man can never know everything. Even if science answers everything about the physical world, science does not answer anything about the emotional spectrum, science can never answer why we think! (Science only can answer to a maximum of "how we think", not why, if you examine it properly.) Science has 'limits' because we are in the early stages of science, but you cannot use science to explain everything. Can science explain emotion? Of course it can explain that emotions are only to a point that neuron attaches to neuron, and therefore forming the electrical signal that processes to form the emotion, but can it really explain the emotion? To break yourself up to only neurons and cells really makes you nothing more than a machine. But we are more than machines. We love, we feel, we think. (Cogito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am) There are aspects of life which Science can never discover. This is the most damning critique of scientism, which is why (surprisingly) scientism is kind of unpopular, even amongst scientists. There are certain things which science cannot explain. How can you explain that the blood flowing from unleavened bread is really blood, of AB Blood type? (There has indeed been such an instance) How can you explain the stigmata? I'm not saying that some phenomena cannot be attributed to science in the future, and those phenomena are mostly NOT considered to be miracles. (And rightfully so) There is actually a category included in science called "What science is likely to be able to explain but we cannot explain it now with math or science". The stigmata and the resurrection - these cannot be explained by science!

Quote:You'll probably get morality, but please remind them that eastern cultures managed to not fall into ruin without their god quite nicely.

Well, ancient China has their fair share of Gods, along with India and many other Eastern countries. Not sure which country is atheistic in the past as people in the past believed in something, supernatural and/or holy Smile

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 10:00 AM
RE: A friendly debate
(22-08-2011 07:21 AM)robotworld Wrote:  I'm sorry to say I have to discount your first half of the paragraph, because it is a stark logical fallacy in the face. It is the logical fallacy of induction, which many scientists fall prey to. Just because Science answered some questions in the past, does not mean that Science will answer all questions in the future.

Your friend has no understanding of formal logic.
1) Induction is not a fallacy, it's one of the basic tools of logic.
2) What he's talking about isn't induction but a variant of what I call a "stock market" fallacy (past performance is no guarantee of future performance).
3) Science can by definition find an explanation for any phenomenon that doesn't violate causality. To put it very simply, science is a process of narrowing down on a cause of observed effect, including the whole chain of interactions that take place between cause and effect. Belief that science can't explain something is equivalent to believing that the thing in question violates causality. And remember that "god did it" or invoking any other supernatural cause means acknowledging that there is no violation of causality in the first place.

Quote:Moreover, it is a philosophical viewpoint that Science can never answer everything. Because man can never know everything. Even if science answers everything about the physical world, science does not answer anything about the emotional spectrum, science can never answer why we think! (Science only can answer to a maximum of "how we think", not why, if you examine it properly.)

When we have answer to the "how" question, the "why" question doesn't make any sense. Why does dog lick his balls?

Quote:Science has 'limits' because we are in the early stages of science, but you cannot use science to explain everything. Can science explain emotion? Of course it can explain that emotions are only to a point that neuron attaches to neuron, and therefore forming the electrical signal that processes to form the emotion, but can it really explain the emotion? To break yourself up to only neurons and cells really makes you nothing more than a machine. But we are more than machines. We love, we feel, we think. (Cogito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am) There are aspects of life which Science can never discover.

Buddhists have a saying: "If you understand, things are as they are. If you don't understand, things are as they are." If we really are nothing more than biological machines, no amount of belief to the contrary will change that fact.

Quote:This is the most damning critique of scientism, which is why (surprisingly) scientism is kind of unpopular, even amongst scientists.

What the hell is this "scientism" I keep hearing about?

Quote:The stigmata and the resurrection - these cannot be explained by science!

Stigmata have been explained by science as severe case of autosuggestion (that is, those that haven't been revealed as fraud or some rare disease). I'm not an expert on anatomy, but I think all it really takes is subconsciously contracting a few muscles in your palms until they rip the skin.

As for resurrection, there are no historical records of this event apart from a story book written 400 years after the event supposedly took place so I'm inclined to file this one under manifestation of creative ability of early Christians.

Quote:Well, ancient China has their fair share of Gods, along with India and many other Eastern countries. Not sure which country is atheistic in the past as people in the past believed in something, supernatural and/or holy Smile

As far as I know, the major Chinese religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) don't have any deities dictating moral code. The only thing they have are vague ideals. Even the concept of karma is tied to causing suffering or bringing happiness to others instead of some rigid set of rules what to do or not do. If you can imagine yourself in someone else's situation, you don't need any magic abilities to figure out what would hurt them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 10:32 AM
RE: A friendly debate
(21-08-2011 03:32 AM)robotworld Wrote:  What creates the first thing? again, you are making the assumption that everything is physical. And theists did not say that God did it is a explanation for EVERYTHING. it is just an explanation for some things. God is the explanation for everything that cannot be fit into science...

This may just be a 'friendly' debate, but it's not one that you can win, because you can't win it with 'science'. Science is our best explanation of true things based on evidence and testing, and if your friend thinks God lies outside of evidence and tests then your friend can not be convinced by any method.

It may have been a great idea to start by asking "What would convince you that God doesn't exist". If he doesn't have an answer, then you're just wasting your time...

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2011, 02:32 PM
RE: A friendly debate
When I said that thing about eastern societies, I meant that they were just fine without Yahweh. Since the point was to ask him to demonstrate one thing his religion could claim as a practical benefit that required it to be true, then the existence of any society without his god, but with morality, would disprove it.

It's kind of like the time I heard VenomfangX (I think) talk about how there must be a god, because evolution can't explain how a society that regularly gives up time to pointless activities (Such as worship and sacrifice) could survive. What he doesn't realize is that, by his model, religion is a detrimental activity unless you're worshiping a god who will benefit you in return. However, since christians are not the only society than can have religion and not fall to ruin, then clearly the truth value of the religion is meaningless. Same thing for morality. Religion might actually play an important role in the development of societies and morality (not a chief role, or a foundational one), but it's independent of the actual truth of the religion.

At any rate, you'll probably want to stop talking to this guy. He is clearly anti-science, and once a person has decided that they're going to flat-out ignore the best tool we have for knowledge... there's not much someone like you or I can do. If you enjoy doing it, then by all means, but he sounds like he's beyond help. Scientism is not something a person who can be reasoned with talks about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 04:45 PM
RE: A friendly debate
Here's more Smile

1) Regarding stigmata, has there been any official reports, proving that the stigmata is of a supernatural cause and not that of a physiological cause? Bacteria or some caustic chemicals are able to simulate the effects you mentioned.
2) Regrading resurrection, how would you define a dead person in the first place?
3) Only religious ethics? Are you sure? Can't ethics be derived from a society without the need of a divine power? A set of rules agreed upon by the society to prevent suffering? We are social animals with the ability of feeling empathy and exchanging ideas, as you have mentioned. Development of moral code is a simple consequence of that.
4) Well, quite a few eastern cultures managed to survive quite harmoniously without having a God to rule over them. How do you explain that?
5) Regarding the scientism you mentioned, what are it's dangers?
6) Science can by definition find an explanation for any phenomenon that doesn't violate causality. To put it very simply, science is a process of narrowing down on a cause of observed effect, including the whole chain of interactions that take place between cause and effect. Belief that science can't explain something is equivalent to believing that the thing in question violates causality. Regarding your Big Bang analogy, it's still a theory, and scientists are formulating a new theory, so stay tuned for the next new and improved theory.
7) Buddhists have a saying: "If you understand, things are as they are. If you don't understand, things are as they are." If we really are nothing more than biological machines, no amount of belief to the contrary will change that fact. The fact that we have emotions or thoughts only distinguishes us from other organisms who can't do so due to the different processing mechanisms of our brain. Research have even shown animals like chimpanzees can exhibit similar thought processes. They can think, they can learn, they can even exhibit empathy (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...85134.htm) Where do they get such "ethics" from? It's is highly unlikely that the chimpanzees worship some God which gave them a set of rules to follow.



1. DUDE. YOU THINK THE POPE NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT?! -.- And if you check the Vatican Archives, or the Secret Archives, there have been medical reports. Do you think the Vatican is REALLY so naive? It can take a person 300 years to be a saint, just so to verify the miracles the saint performed.
2. Heart stops beating for more than 7.5mins. Doesn't it get more simple than that? -.-
3. You're being a negative utilitarian in this case. And the best way to be a negative utilitarian is to exterminate all life. No life, no person to suffer, therefore nobody suffers, therefore no suffering. Surely that's not ethical, and that's dangerous. Don't be a fool. Moreover, you are AGAIN making a naturalistic fallacy. And a blatant one at that. -.-
4. You're talking about Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. There is still this particular authority, whom these people worship as a God or gods. Who said that there is no authority? ALL RELIGIONS AND ANCIENT CULTURES ARE GROUNDED ON SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY.
5. Thinking that science is king and that science explains everything. It is too fanatic a belief, and leads to intolerance, which is extremely dangerous in today's world.
6. I can just dismiss the entire few sentences there by saying, "There is no single universal standard agreed definition of science. In a chapter of 20 pages I see at least 3 different definitions, two of which has grounds of contradiction." Moreover, you said its theory, and there's no proof of it. No evidence. So it's still speculation. How can you put a belief into something which is speculation, where there is no grounds for knowledge? (Reason, Introspection, Memory, Experience, Testimony - It does not fit into any of these five) At least religion fits into one or two (and to a large extent all 5) of these sources of knowledge. The big bang (and all scientific theories about the start of the universe for that matter) are THEORIES, not KNOWLEDGE. And you can never prove them to be knowledge. On this account, the argument FOR God is stronger than the argument for the Big Bang, or any other theory for the formulation of the universe through science alone.
7. LOOK DON'T DISGRACE THE BUDDHIST QUOTE. I know this particular one well. It's talking about ethics and culture. Nothing about science, and it was not intended for science. It's talking about inner peace, that we do not understand our purpose, and even if we do understand, we are here for this purpose (say to kill hitler) and even if we do not understand, it still is the case. Don't use this for science, because if you use this for science, you're making two big mistakes. Firstly, you're taking it to the wrong context, it's as if you're trying to dump stuff and twist the words around just to fit your theory. It's extremely rude and it's also extremely disrespectful. It's also looked down upon. Secondly, even if your argument is sound, it begs the next question: THEN WHAT ARE WE REALLY HERE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE? Since you claim that "things are as they are", who are you to say you understand? Even if the theist doesn't understand, does it mean the scientist/scientism advocate definitely understands? There is no way to know who is right. Which means either position is in serious doubt. You're thus not getting anywhere with this argument. By stating this, IF AND ONLY IF IT IS SOUND, the argument actually more ruins the scientism/scientist's own position than ruins the theist's. It's like scoring an own goal and giving me one extra point to win the match.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: A friendly debate
(23-08-2011 04:45 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Regarding your Big Bang analogy, it's still a theory, and scientists are formulating a new theory, so stay tuned for the next new and improved theory.

*Facepalm* Theory is as far as you can get in science. Ideas not (yet) supported by evidence are called "hypotheses", and Big bang theory is not a hypothesis. There's as much evidence for Big bang as there is for general relativity.

Quote:1. DUDE. YOU THINK THE POPE NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT?! -.- And if you check the Vatican Archives, or the Secret Archives, there have been medical reports. Do you think the Vatican is REALLY so naive? It can take a person 300 years to be a saint, just so to verify the miracles the saint performed.

No, I think Vatican has huge conflict of interest in this case.

Quote:2. Heart stops beating for more than 7.5mins. Doesn't it get more simple than that? -.-

People have been revived after a lot longer than that, even without brain damage when there was hypothermia involved.

Quote:3. You're being a negative utilitarian in this case. And the best way to be a negative utilitarian is to exterminate all life. No life, no person to suffer, therefore nobody suffers, therefore no suffering. Surely that's not ethical, and that's dangerous. Don't be a fool. Moreover, you are AGAIN making a naturalistic fallacy. And a blatant one at that. -.-

Prevent suffering by causing it? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Quote:4. You're talking about Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. There is still this particular authority, whom these people worship as a God or gods. Who said that there is no authority? ALL RELIGIONS AND ANCIENT CULTURES ARE GROUNDED ON SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY.

Just because there is some sort of authority doesn't imply that this authority dictates moral code.

Quote:5. Thinking that science is king and that science explains everything. It is too fanatic a belief, and leads to intolerance, which is extremely dangerous in today's world.

The #1 cause of intolerance I see around myself is dividing people to "us" and "them". I have yet to see a case where science has any say in the matter at all.

Quote:6. I can just dismiss the entire few sentences there by saying, "There is no single universal standard agreed definition of science. In a chapter of 20 pages I see at least 3 different definitions, two of which has grounds of contradiction."

WTF?

Quote:Moreover, you said its theory, and there's no proof of it. No evidence. So it's still speculation. How can you put a belief into something which is speculation, where there is no grounds for knowledge? (Reason, Introspection, Memory, Experience, Testimony - It does not fit into any of these five) At least religion fits into one or two (and to a large extent all 5) of these sources of knowledge. The big bang (and all scientific theories about the start of the universe for that matter) are THEORIES, not KNOWLEDGE. And you can never prove them to be knowledge. On this account, the argument FOR God is stronger than the argument for the Big Bang, or any other theory for the formulation of the universe through science alone.

Science doesn't give absolute truths and doesn't even claim to do so. Science aims for absolute truths but no matter how close it gets, the absolute truth will always stay out of its reach.

The difference between faith and knowledge is whether or not you can demonstrate it to others. The argument for god is empty because if you could demonstrate its existence, there's no need for faith.

Quote:7. LOOK DON'T DISGRACE THE BUDDHIST QUOTE. I know this particular one well. It's talking about ethics and culture. Nothing about science, and it was not intended for science. It's talking about inner peace, that we do not understand our purpose, and even if we do understand, we are here for this purpose (say to kill hitler) and even if we do not understand, it still is the case. Don't use this for science, because if you use this for science, you're making two big mistakes. Firstly, you're taking it to the wrong context, it's as if you're trying to dump stuff and twist the words around just to fit your theory. It's extremely rude and it's also extremely disrespectful. It's also looked down upon.

Wrong. This quote is applicable to anything that has an objective answer. It doesn't matter whether the question is scientific, philosophical or whatever else, the only thing that matters is that it has an objective answer. Also, emotional claims about some alleged disrespect are not an argument.

Quote:Secondly, even if your argument is sound, it begs the next question: THEN WHAT ARE WE REALLY HERE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE?

We are here to give our lives a meaning. We don't need to be pawns in someone else's grand plan to have one.

Quote:Since you claim that "things are as they are", who are you to say you understand?

I don't say that. I just do my best to understand as much as I can. Can you say the same for yourself?

Quote:Even if the theist doesn't understand, does it mean the scientist/scientism advocate definitely understands? There is no way to know who is right.

Actually, there is. Those who can demonstrate that their claims are true are right.

Quote:Which means either position is in serious doubt. You're thus not getting anywhere with this argument. By stating this, IF AND ONLY IF IT IS SOUND, the argument actually more ruins the scientism/scientist's own position than ruins the theist's. It's like scoring an own goal and giving me one extra point to win the match.

Let me get this straight, this guy starts his argument by meaningless emotional claims about disrespect, then asks some dumb questions and then declares victory? Whatever he's smoking, it must be some really good stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes next_ghost's post
25-08-2011, 05:41 AM
RE: A friendly debate
Hey next_ghost! Thank you for your help Smile
I hope to learn how to build up my arguments from you all Big Grin
Anyway, the reason why I'm still doing this is that I hope to accumulate information, then I'm ready to talk to my parents on religion.
Thank you all for your help!

1) So, why not publish these papers on miracles out to journals, with details on the reports? The Vatican has nothing to lose by promoting faith to educate the public.
2) If your definition of death is that, then yes with current technology I can bring the dead back to life.
3) Well, to go back to the main point, just because there is some sort of authority doesn't imply that this authority dictates moral code.
4) Regarding scientism, "It is too fanatic a belief, and leads to intolerance, which is extremely dangerous in today's world." Can you explain further? I can't see how you have justified scientism brings about negative effects.
5) Science doesn't give absolute truths and doesn't even claim to do so. Science aims for absolute truths but no matter how close it gets, the absolute truth will always stay out of its reach. The difference between faith and knowledge is whether or not you can demonstrate it to others. The argument for god is empty because if you could demonstrate its existence, there's no need for faith.
6) "WHAT ARE WE REALLY HERE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE?" Well, we are here to give our own lives a meaning. Do we really need to be pawns in someone else's grand plan to have a meaning in our life?
7) "Even if the theist doesn't understand, does it mean the scientist/scientism advocate definitely understands? There is no way to know who is right." Actually, there is. Those who can demonstrate that their claims are true are right. Just curious, can religion do the same?

Ah, just a side track...
1) Regarding Induction, isn't it one of the basic tools of logic?
This counts as induction too right? Hope to learn more about fallacies and arguments Smile
"God didn't intend evil. Evil comes about due to the devil, who opposed God, and is still opposing God. Evil exists because of Satan. But if you read in the Bible, God will crush Satan in the end. He cannot kill Satan yet, because as man closed heaven from himself from the first sin of Adam, He must open heaven, before destroying death, and then destroying Satan. There is an order, therefore evil exists as of now, because Man has free will. And man has free will, therefore there is always the chance that man chooses evil. Therefore there forever exists evil till the end of time. "




‎1. They did, it's just that most people like you and me don't look at it, or do not have access to it because they're either in the Archives or the Secret Archives. They are, however, accessible.
2. That is the medical definition of death. What you're talking about is how life can be resuscitated after that. Of course you can do it 1h after "death", what about 3 days? Surely not. And this happened twice in the bible.
‎3. If the authority does not dictate the moral code, it necessitates that no human is of that authority to confirm that what humans state is indeed moral.
‎4. You are dismissing all other fields of knowledge, when it is obvious that science cannot answer everything. That is dangerously limiting to knowledge.
5. You're being horrendously limited in your worldview. Religion and science both assume the truth of an external reality other than yourself. You have to justify the knowledge, which is the logical reasoning behind it. You also have to believe it is true, necessitating both faith and belief in science and religion respectively. Knowledge is this definition: It is (at least assumed because we can never verify an external world) true, I believe it is true, and I am justified in believing that it is true. ("JTB"). This is strict and widely accepted definition of knowledge. Faith IS part of knowledge. It's one of the criterion for knowledge to be called knowledge. And are you really so sure that science DOESN'T claim to give absolute truths? If you do, you are horribly and severely misinformed. Science HAS claimed to be the absolute truth. The difference between faith and knowledge is not that faith cannot be demonstrated to others, but that faith is a premise for belief. In this account, then, science is more empty than religious knowledge. On what grounds can you justify your belief in scientific knowledge? If you actually do say that science is justified because of experiments, yada yada, scientific method, observation, you have made a million weak assumptions and a many more logical fallacies. All in all, scientific knowledge is actually grounded in more assumptions (which as we all know are not absolute) than religion. Note that I trust scientific knowledge to be true, but religion is logically more certain than science.
6. NATURALISTIC FALLACY AGAIN. Just because you live to give your lives a meaning doesn't mean its the way it SHOULD be.
7. The whole point is, you CANNOT demonstrate whether your claim is indeed right or not. In this aspect, science is actually even more horrendously limited when compared to religion. And even if you state that you CAN demonstrate scientific analysis to others, you fall for the traps of language. Sapir-Whorf analysis, and all other problems of language. You CANNOT demonstrate scientific knowledge fully even. Religion, however, CAN demonstrate its knowledge more fluently and accurately than science. It uses different mediums than that of science to convey its knowledge. Just because these mediums are less encountered doesn't mean they are less better. They are actually equal in stature.

Side-track. Induction arguments fail easily, because the premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion. Just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean the sun will rise tomorrow. You have to assume that the sun WILL rise tomorrow.
Deductive arguments, on the other hand, are NECESSARILY true. The statement you quoted IS a deductive argument. Because the first statement is deductive. "God did not intend evil" - that's deductive in nature. "God knows all" - factual statement. Every other premise leads from the second premise that God knows all, therefore he knows that humans WILL commit sin. The premises naturally lead to the conclusion. Therefore, that argument is stronger than a typical inductive.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: