What Are Our Beliefs And Why?

[Eltu]

The whole religious vs science argument is irrelevant anyway. Science is not fact, it is a theory on how the world is based on observation and testing. Scientific theories are constantly changing, continuously challenged and regulalry proved to be false.

This.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

The whole religious vs science argument is irrelevant anyway. Science is not fact, it is a theory on how the world is based on observation and testing. Scientific theories are constantly changing, continuously challenged and regulalry proved to be false.

I agree for the most part; though, there is scientific fact. I wouldn't call science a theory. Science is better described as a system that gathers knowledge to produce scientific laws and scientific theories (which should not be confused with the colloquial use of "theory") which can be tested using particular methods (the standard of which is the scientific method).

[Ratavasidna]

Buddhism

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I agree for the most part; though, there is scientific fact. I wouldn't call science a theory. Science is better described as a system that gathers knowledge to produce scientific laws and scientific theories (which should not be confused with the colloquial use of "theory") which can be tested using particular methods (the standard of which is the scientific method).

This.

A hypothesis can be rejected or accepted, which is how knowledge is built up.

[neytirifanboy]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I agree for the most part; though, there is scientific fact. I wouldn't call science a theory. Science is better described as a system that gathers knowledge to produce scientific laws and scientific theories (which should not be confused with the colloquial use of "theory") which can be tested using particular methods (the standard of which is the scientific method).

I am not sure what you mean by "there is science fact".

I know that a lot of "science fact" are actually theories based on limited observations which are sometimes disproved. But you are suggesting that there is some science that is fact, and thus cannot be disproved.

Does that mean that there are at least two, or several, levels of science? One level that is fact and others that are just theories. In that case, how can we tell the difference between them?

[neytirifanboy]

Originally Posted by Harvester of Sorrow

Cant wait till the large hedron collider pwns your religious beliefs.

Could you go into more detail please. I am intrigued to know how this will happen.

[Eltu]

No religious debates here please - we have a place for those.

Go to #treeofsouls-debate in IRC in case you want to debate about religion. In the forums, this will only lead to flamewars.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

I am not sure what you mean by "there is science fact".

I know that a lot of "science fact" are actually theories based on limited observations which are sometimes disproved. But you are suggesting that there is some science that is fact, and thus cannot be disproved.

Does that mean that there are at least two, or several, levels of science? One level that is fact and others that are just theories. In that case, how can we tell the difference between them?

If it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it exists as it is, and can only be changed depending on the nature of the environment, then it's a scientific "fact". Gravity is a perfect example. That's what I think.

[neytirifanboy]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

If it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it exists as it is, and can only be changed depending on the nature of the environment, then it's a scientific "fact". Gravity is a perfect example. That's what I think.

Yes, indeed. Gravity is a good example. But it is interesting to observe that gravity neither proves or disproves God. And I think that is true of most accepted science facts.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

I am not sure what you mean by "there is science fact".

I know that a lot of "science fact" are actually theories based on limited observations which are sometimes disproved. But you are suggesting that there is some science that is fact, and thus cannot be disproved.

A scientific fact is an observation that is both objective and verifiable. A scientific theory is that which explains scientific fact (I should note that scientific theories encompass more than just explaining what we may consider scientific fact). If we take gravity as an example, the observation that items will fall to earth is scientific fact. The explanation for that scientific fact can be found in scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity or relativity (I believe Newton's theory of gravity has been superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity; though, the theory of relativity does conflict in certain respects with quantum theory).

Sometimes a scientist may call a scientific theory a fact because the theory is said to be "overwhelmingly" supported by the evidence. The theory of evolution is an example of a scientific theory that is sometimes referred to as fact for this reason. This use of the word "fact" should not be confused with "scientific fact" as described in the paragraph above.

Does that mean that there are at least two, or several, levels of science? One level that is fact and others that are just theories. In that case, how can we tell the difference between them?

Not different levels; rather, different aspects that make up the system that constitutes science.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Sometimes a scientist may call a scientific theory a fact because the theory is said to be "overwhelmingly" supported by the evidence. The theory of evolution is an example of a scientific theory that is sometimes referred to as fact for this reason. This use of the word "fact" should not be confused with "scientific fact" as described in the paragraph above.

There's overwhelming evidence in support of microevolution; absolutely. But that's as far as it goes; the rest is guesswork. Evolutionism is a constantly changing theory, with all sorts of different discoveries that cancel out other theories surrounding it. "Ardi" is one example. It remains technically a "theory" because all evidence it gives is based on "the most recent discovery", while most (if not all) previous finds haven't stood the test of time.

[Советский меч]

Why is it that if I claim that the keyboard, I’m typing this on, regularly turns into green cheese from the planet Krypton, then everyone will call me insane, but if someone claims that the bread they are eating and the wine they are drinking are turning into the flesh and blood of a guy born of a virgin, who is his own father, and who rose from the dead 2000 years ago, then he’s called a Catholic and should be respected for his faith?
When an absurd belief is labelled religious, then it suddenly isn’t considered absurd any more.
A lot of religious people claim that their god is omnipotent (all-powerful), this however leads to a lot of problems, which have been pointed out by numerous people. One of these problems is the consequences of the simple but a bit naïve question: “Can God create a rock that he can’t lift?” If God can’t do this, then he isn’t omnipotent, and if he can, then he still isn’t omnipotent, because then there is something, that he can’t do – i.e. lift the rock.

This means that omnipotence is a logical impossibility, and therefore omnipotent gods are also logically impossible

I know that this is no definite proof against the existence of gods, but it should give anyone pause that religions have existed for thousands of years and a huge number of people have done their best to discover gods or prove their existence, and as far as I have been able to find out, we still have no real evidence.

If it were anything other than religion we were talking about, wouldn't you have given up if such a search had failed to find any evidence? I know I would, and I don't see any reason to make religion a special case.



By Morten Monrad Pedersen

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

There's overwhelming evidence in support of microevolution; absolutely. But that's as far as it goes; the rest is guesswork.

What do you mean by "microevolution"? I am not well studied in the field of biology, but I do know that terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" have specific meanings in the field of biology - which may not coincide with their colloquial counterparts.

Evolutionism is a constantly changing theory, with all sorts of different discoveries that cancel out other theories surrounding it.

I don't know what "evolutionism" is? Is there such a thing as "gravitism?" I don't think such terms are used in the scientific community. What other theories surrounding evolution are cancelled out by different discoveries?

It remains technically a "theory" because all evidence it gives is based on "the most recent discovery", while most (if not all) previous finds haven't stood the test of time.

You're going to have to show me what you mean by this. How does evolution "give" evidence?

If you respond tonight, I'll probably respond to you tomorrow (unless you make me do research, then it may take a little longer ). But I look forward to your reply as this field is one I am not too familiar with.

[Woodsprite]

Here we go...

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

What do you mean by "microevolution"? I am not well studied in the field of biology, but I do know that terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" have specific meanings in the field of biology - which may not coincide with their colloquial counterparts.

This has been constantly debated over: Isn't "macro" the same thing, with micro changes over millions of years through mutation?

Technically, no. Macroevolution deals with biological supplementary information relay. In order for a new family to arise from another (like reptile to bird), new genetic information must be added. As no one has demonstrated any feasible example of how this could occur, it remains a mystery.

"But wait! Haven't scientists proven this can occur? Take the mouse brain, for example. In one experiment it was increased in size with new tissue and more cranium space. New information was added." Incorrect (as this is usually the example given). No new information was added to the mouse's brain. More brain tissue was simply replicated and made larger, but the mouse remained just as dumb as it was before. It had no new abilities; there was no new genetic information.

Sum-up: Macro has to add new information. There has never been any evidence for this process, and there hasn't ever been any substantial proof offered for its occurrence.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I don't know what "evolutionism" is? Is there such a thing as "gravitism?" I don't think such terms are used in the scientific community.

...Yes, I figured someone would bring that up. Gravity can be observed, tested, and demonstrated, while the process of macroevolution is outside the realm of such verifications we can make using the scientific method.

I use the term "evolutionism" sometimes because many of its properties are speculations outside the testable realm (subject to the scientific method). For example, the giraffe's long neck is described to have slowly stretched and elongated over time through mutation to become the way it is today. That's a nice story, but it isn't a scientific one, as it can only be speculated over, not tested.

In other words, much of the basic theory is subject to "Long ago and far away", though none of the proposed changes can be observed, or even tested to have happened.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

What other theories surrounding evolution are cancelled out by different discoveries?

There's Ardi, like I mentioned. There are various observations concerning background radiation that was thought for a while to be "evidence" for the big bang (when it was later discovered it came from many different directions, and thus discarded). I could go on.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

You're going to have to show me what you mean by this. How does evolution "give" evidence?

It's a theory. To be defined as such you must be able to conduct falsification tests, which evolutionism has. Once these tests are passed, the hypothesis becomes "theory", though there are many tests it hasn't passed, like showing any logical hypothesis on how transitions between two and three-celled intermediates (which we have no evidence for) can evolve into multi-cellular organisms, for one.

Evolutionism "gives" evidence per-say through discovery.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

If you respond tonight, I'll probably respond to you tomorrow (unless you make me do research, then it may take a little longer ). But I look forward to your reply as this field is one I am not too familiar with.

Oh... I'm familiar. Let's just say I'm familiar.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Harvester of Sorrow

Why is it that if I claim that the keyboard, I’m typing this on, regularly turns into green cheese from the planet Krypton, then everyone will call me insane, but if someone claims that the bread they are eating and the wine they are drinking are turning into the flesh and blood of a guy born of a virgin, who is his own father, and who rose from the dead 2000 years ago, then he’s called a Catholic and should be respected for his faith?

If that was your belief about a keyboard turning into green cheese then I would have to respect it even though i wouldn't agree with it. I don't understand why it is difficult for some to respect other people's beliefs even when they are not their own. It comes down to respecting the person.

When an absurd belief is labelled religious, then it suddenly isn’t considered absurd any more.

Well, it depends. This is not always the case and you know it.

A lot of religious people claim that their god is omnipotent (all-powerful), this however leads to a lot of problems, which have been pointed out by numerous people. One of these problems is the consequences of the simple but a bit naïve question: “Can God create a rock that he can’t lift?” If God can’t do this, then he isn’t omnipotent, and if he can, then he still isn’t omnipotent, because then there is something, that he can’t do – i.e. lift the rock.

There are some things in this life that are mysteries. I cannot begin to know the mind of God. It is a mystery to me. There are some things that are observable and can be known but there is others that are not. Science is very important and it is helped us to progress to this point. It explains things only on their physical level, not on the spiritual or mental level and due to this fact, science can't explain everything. It is beyond science's capability so the issue of God's omnipotence is a matter of faith,etc not something that can be quantified and observed.

This means that omnipotence is a logical impossibility, and therefore omnipotent gods are also logically impossible

Reason is also very important and needs to go hand in hand with faith but it alone won't explain everything so according to reason and logice, it is impossible, but not so according to faith and spiritual matters.

I know that this is no definite proof against the existence of gods, but it should give anyone pause that religions have existed for thousands of years and a huge number of people have done their best to discover gods or prove their existence, and as far as I have been able to find out, we still have no real evidence.

There is evidence but not everyone sees the evidence. Their eyes must look beyond mere scientific fact and reason and see with spiritual eyes. There is more to this world than what we see with our own eyes or what we hear, breathe, touch, taste, etc.

If it were anything other than religion we were talking about, wouldn't you have given up if such a search had failed to find any evidence? I know I would, and I don't see any reason to make religion a special case.

No because I can't claim to know everything and I certainly can't claim that science and empirical reason alone can explain everything in the universe. That is why I choose to believe. I know that you don't and I respect you for that.