The Truth

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
has science proven god doesn't exist?

has science proven superstring theory to be false?

since science has done none of the above, don't you think it is poor logic to assume god doesn't exist and superstring theory as "maybe yet to be proven"?

Superstring theory is based off evidence. While it has yet to be proven (which is true), religion is based off no evidence.

Which one seems more believable?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Science rests on assumptions which science itself cannot prove to be truth.…

Firstly, science can give “proof that a hypothesis is probably true given certain assumptions carefully chosen and designed to be hard for most people to refute and many of those assumptions are qualified assumptions with some evidence to support them. Sometimes t ...[text shortened]... much evidence supporting them that those “assumptions” are actually really regarded as “facts”.

]

[/b]

First I apologies to all for my crudeness. I've been grumpy lately.
Please forgive me for crudeness.

Science is very useful. Science can prove some things. Science rests on philosophy and cannot be done without philosophy.

The philosophical assumptions upon which science is based cannot themselves be proved by science.

You can't prove the tools of science - laws of logic, Law of Causality, Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observation by running some kind of science experiment.

You have to assume those things to be true in order to do the experiment. So you as a scientist or science enthusiast have a kind of "faith" just like I do.

Now here is the interesting thing to me. Christ comes right up front and instructs us to believe and have faith. It is not an assumption, an afterthought at the tail end of the Bible that we latch on to when all "proof" fails. We are told initially, right up front, this is a matter of you having trust and faith.

"As many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God"

Not "As many as could [prove] Him, to them He gave ..."

I think that theologians are divided over the matter of whether God can be proved or not. I have not stated positively on this Forum one way or another. The theologian Carl Barth was not an atheist. He did not believe that God's existence was provable.

I have written here that I have evidence that leads me to believe we are on the right track to believe in God. I have not said "I know that God's existence can be proved."

Maybe you should take you demand of scientific proof of God's existence to someone who has made the claim that he can prove God's existence. I am happy to say that I have strong evidence that we are on the right track to believe in God's existence.


I don't think there are any good reasons to be an atheist.

==============================
Secondly, isn’t it true that religion rests on assumptions which religion itself cannot prove to be truth? (Especially the assumption that there exists a god)
=====================================

I think so. That is why I pointed out that the Gospels (I prefer to use that term than "religion" ) are frank and honest by telling you UP FRONT - Have Faith.

See what I mean ?

Look at John's statement towards the end of his Gospel:

"Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book.

But these have been written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BELIEVING, you may have life in His name." (John20:20,31 my emphasis)

Faith in God is a great power. All that Christ did and accomplished He attributed to His faith in His Father.

Thoughout the Bible faith is very strong matter. And the personalities of the Bible who learned to have faith accomplished tremendous things
in the realm of God's will.

So true faith is not a weakly and feeble matter. It is so strong enough to effect eternity.

Originally posted by jaywill


First I apologies to all for my crudeness. I've been grumpy lately.
Please forgive me for crudeness.

Science is very useful. Science can prove some things. Science rests on philosophy and cannot be done without philosophy.

The philosophical assumptions upon which science is based cannot themselves be proved by science.

You can't p ...[text shortened]... t a weakly and feeble matter. It is so strong enough to effect eternity.[/b]

Some basic arguments:

First of all, there are several good reasons to be atheist. See my other (now obsolete) thread for several reasons.

Yes, Christ believed he was acting on God's orders. So did Hitler. Does that make Hitler the son of God too?

Faith is strong. It is enough to destroy the world.

Originally posted by scherzo
Some basic arguments:

First of all, there are several good reasons to be atheist. See my other (now obsolete) thread for several reasons.

Yes, Christ believed he was acting on God's orders. So did Hitler. Does that make Hitler the son of God too?

Faith is strong. It is enough to destroy the world.

I want to add something.

Man's faith is only one side of the matter. The other side is the faithFUNESS of God.


If we have faith and God is not FAITHFUL then we have a problem. The truth of life is arrived at from one side - man's faith in God plus the other side - the FAITHFULNESS of God.

Concerning Hitler and Jesus:

The Bible itself throughout discriminates between presumption and true faith.


I don't want to speak for Hitler because I am not sure that he thought he was doing anything for anyone other than Germany.

But the Pharisees and the chief priests, they certainly thought (they presumed) that to persecute Christ was their work that they had to do for God.

Presumption and Faith are contrasted many many times against each other in the books of the Bible.

Originally posted by jaywill


First I apologies to all for my crudeness. I've been grumpy lately.
Please forgive me for crudeness.

Science is very useful. Science can prove some things. Science rests on philosophy and cannot be done without philosophy.

The philosophical assumptions upon which science is based cannot themselves be proved by science.

You can't p t a weakly and feeble matter. It is so strong enough to effect eternity.[/b]

…You can't prove the tools of science - laws of logic, Law of Causality, Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observation by running some kind of science experiment.

Actually you can prove “laws of logic” providing you are talking about deductive and not inductive logic. Just as a trivial example, you can proof the law of logic that says:

“X And Y is true” = “(not X) or (not Y) is false”

Although this is just a tautology. There are also mathematical proofs that may be used in some scientific theories.

You can also give a probabilistic estimate of “the reliability of observation by running some kind of science experiment” by repeating an experiment many times to make observations and then testing your conclusions you made from those observations to see what proportion of those conclusions are correct and then you can do a statistical analysis of these results.

I agree that you cannot “prove Law of Causality” although it isn’t always necessary to always assume cause and effect when making conclusions from observations -certain conclusions from observations in quantum mechanics can be a good example of that.

As for the “Principle of Uniformity”, although you cannot literally “prove” it, whereever we have looked so far, we see that matter and energy behave according to the same laws. Although this doesn’t show that the laws apply everywhere, if you look in a forest that nobody has been in before, wouldn’t you expect that the matter and energy there will behave according to the same laws? It would seem pretty stupid to me if you thought the chances of the laws of physics there being the same as elsewhere were only, say, 50%.

Originally posted by josephw
The existence of God is a fact, and it requires no faith at all to know it.

The atheist claims there is no evidence in the face of all that exists, which IS the evidence for the existence of a creator (God).

Stop playing linguistic tricks.

Either you believe in the truth of the ontological argument or you don't and perhaps you believe in what Spinoza called a mathematical proof for God's existence -- which of course rested on certain axioms, including the premise that the universe was all one "substance" and therefore all that exists does so as a part of that one substance, which devolves into the meaning for the use of the word "God."

but I sense you don't really mean what Spinoza said -- for if you did, you could not accept an anthropomorphic deification of a human being as I think you do. Spinoza rules that right out.

further, I'm not sure what you really mean by "the atheist." Is that someone who absolutely denies that any meaning one may attach to the word "God" is valid and the word actually refers to nothing that exists? Or do you simply mean anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

Most of all, I'm vexed by your use of the word "fact."

You can't have things all ways. Your murds are sufficiently woddled so as to cause legitimate confusion -- which I suspect is the main technique of the religious zealot when faced with an attempt to discuss spiritual matters using a rational approach.

Pity, as Buddhist teachers don't seem to have the same need to rely on the deception, delusion, dishonesty, dissimulation, duplicity, and dogma that you do.

Of course, the other possibility is that you simply aren't that bright.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I know how I would answer this question;

I would NOT point out his absurdity of his religious dilutions -NOT because his absurd religious dilutions are correct; of course his dilutions are not correct, but because I don’t want them to rape my sister etc. So what is your point?

Are you implying that you have to read the Bible just to know that ...[text shortened]... aps in that case I should lie by pretending they should not rape my sister because of the Bible?

Yeah, what he said.

Obviously I am not about to dis-illusion them. In they same way that if it were your family and the attackers were Hindu and stayed their hand because of belief in their Hindu holy texts, you are not likely to try to persuade them that those beliefs were wrong and they should turn to Christianity.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by scherzo
Ah, but some things in science can be proven. Math, true, is founded on axioms (why does 1+1=2, why does 2^2=4, etc.). You cannot prove anything in math without relying on these unprovable axioms to some extent. However, science is provable. There is evidence to support scientific theory, which is why it is so believable, especially when compared to most religions.

I disagree here. Give me an example of something that you consider to be scientifically proven and I'll see if I can show that it is not.

Note that the counter example may well be ludicrous but I am just trying to demonstrate why proof, in the absolute sense cannot be achieved through the scientific method (or any other for that matter).

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by scherzo
Ah, but some things in science can be proven. Math, true, is founded on axioms (why does 1+1=2, why does 2^2=4, etc.). You cannot prove anything in math without relying on these unprovable axioms to some extent. However, science is provable. There is evidence to support scientific theory, which is why it is so believable, especially when compared to most religions.

…Ah, but some things in science can be proven. Math, true, is founded on axioms (why does 1+1=2, why does 2^2=4, etc.). You cannot prove anything in math without relying on these unprovable axioms to some extent….

Actually, you can prove 1+1=2, and 2^2=4, etc.

For example, if you go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

and look close to the bottom, you see that it mentions that 1+1=2 is proven (proven from simpler axioms).

The axioms that Bertrand Russell Principia Mathematica uses do not require 'proof' because they are the axioms that Bertrand Russell use for the definition of what is meant by the word “number”. Therefore, the axioms must be true by definition of number -unless in the unlikely event you disagree with his definition of “number” in which case, you are not talking about the same thing he is -so his proof will be still proof of his definition of number! So you really can literally “prove” things in maths.

…However, science is provable. There is evidence to support scientific theory, which is why it is so believable, especially when compared to most religions.….

Yes, provable not in the sense of “absolute proof” but in the sense that, given a mountain of evidence for a scientific theorem and no evidence to the contrary and given certain highly qualified assumptions that you would be unreasonable to refute, all non-delusional intelligent people that take into account ALL the evidence may inevitably come to believe that that scientific theorem is true and with a vanishing small probability of it being false.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You can't prove the tools of science - laws of logic, Law of Causality, Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observation by running some kind of science experiment.

Actually you can prove “laws of logic” providing you are talking about deductive and not inductive logic. Just as a trivial example, you can proof the law of logic th ...[text shortened]... ught the chances of the laws of physics there being the same as elsewhere were only, say, 50%.[/b]

Andrew,

Do you feel that this statement is true?

Science is the only objective source of truth.


That, incidently was the position of atheist Peter Atkins.
Do you agree with this statement?

====================================

The axioms that Bertrand Russell Principia Mathematica uses do not require 'proof' because they are the axioms that Bertrand Russell use for the definition of what is meant by the word “number”. Therefore, the axioms must be true by definition of number -unless in the unlikely event you disagree with his definition of “number” in which case, you are not talking about the same thing he is -so his proof will be still proof of his definition of number! So you really can literally “prove” things in maths.

=======================================

But this method rests on something that we can call faith.
Any attempt to defend reason by using reason is circular.

Can you see that defending reason with reason as a tool is a circular argument?

Now let's consider the Darwinist's world to see how his science is based on faith. What is the source of reason for the atheistic materialist Darwinist?

He says our minds arose from mindless matter WITHOUT intelligent intervention. This is a belief of his faith because it contradicts all scientific observation, which demonstrates that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

What Cause A does not have to give it cannot give to Effect B.

The materialist believes that dead, unintelligent matter produced intelligent life. This is like believing that a tornado running through a junk yard could produce the Space Shuttle. Or it is like an explosion in a print factory producing the Library of Congress.

The science of the Darwinist is based on his faith, his philosophy.

I have faith also. I have faith that man is made in the image of God. His ability to reason reflects the ability of his Creator. I think this makes more sense. The materialist Darwinist cannot explain reason any more than it can explain life.

I think our ability to reason came from one of two sources:

1.) It came from preexisting intelligence.

2.) It arose from mindless matter.

I think #1 represents the truth. I don't have enough faith to believe #2.


I may not be able to prove that we are made in the image of God and derive our ability to reason from that source. I think I have demonstrated that in the pursuit of truth the atheist / materialist / Darwinist also stands on a kind of faith.

My book the Bible comes right out in the open, telling us up front - "This truth is apprehended by means of faith". For example:

"But without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing [to Him]. He who would come forward to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

I would encourage you to read the entire chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews in the NT which is dedicated to the matter of faith.


I am all for the continued advancement of science study. But I realize that science rests on philosophy and faith. Bad philosophy will result in bad science. Good philosophy will result in good science.

Originally posted by jaywill
Andrew,

Do you feel that this statement is true?

[b]Science is the only objective source of truth.


That, incidently was the position of atheist Peter Atkins.
Do you agree with this statement?[/b]

No. I do not believe that it is literally true that:

“Science is the only objective source of truth”

But I do believe that science is one of the objective sources of truth but religion is not. I could observe using my eyes that there is what very clearly appears to be a tree on a hill and then objectively conclude from the evidence of my senses that there is a tree on the hill -that kind of personal conclusion from unrecorded (e.g. not written down to be scrutinised by others) observation is not generally be said to be part of “science” so that is an example of an alternative objective source of truth other than science.

I could be wrong but I don’t think Peter Atkins would disagree with that statement I made above but, even if he did, so what? That would just mean I disagree with him on that specific point but not necessarily on some of the other opinions he may have.

Just out of curiosity, why did you mention Peter Atkins?

-Have to go to work now - I will answer you other questions a bit later.

Originally posted by jaywill
====================================

The axioms that Bertrand Russell Principia Mathematica uses do not require 'proof' because they are the axioms that Bertrand Russell use for the definition of what is meant by the word “number”. Therefore, the axioms must be true by definition of number -unless in the unlikely event you disagree with his defini Bad philosophy will result in bad science. Good philosophy will result in good science.

…But this method rests on something that we can call faith. …

No. What it is based on in this case is his definition of “number” and a definition isn’t “faith“. How can it be “faith” to define number the way he does? Either you agree with his definition, in which case he has absolute deductive proof for all his mathematical theorems because they logically follow from his definition -so no “faith” there; or, you disagree with his definition, in which case you are not talking about the same thing as he is when he and you would talk of “number” -again, no “faith” there -just a disagreement with semantics.

… Any attempt to defend reason by using reason is circular.

Can you see that defending reason with reason as a tool is a circular argument? …

Firstly, does that mean you disagree with using reason to derive one’s beliefs?
If so, then if I am to try to deduce if a mathematical theorem is true or false in a maths exam, if I shouldn’t use reason to do this task then what should I use in the place of reason? -read verses from the Bible?
You said on one of your previous posts that you have “strong reasons” for believing there is a god. Doesn’t that imply that you think you are using “reason” to derive your belief that there is a god and, if so, why would you except reason there and yet reject it here?

Secondly, in this case we are talking about reasoning by deductive logic as opposed to reasoning by inductive logic. All reasoning by deductive logic is fundamentally tautological. It typically in the from: If proposition X is true then …(the actual proof of the argument here)…therefore, proposition Y is also true. In this form, the reasoning is non-circular. Also, the is no reason to “defend “ this type of reason because it is based on such self-evident things as “X is not (not X)” etc -it is not “faith” to believe that “X is not (not X)”, it is just a matter of tautological logic.

… Now let's consider the Darwinist's world to see how his science is based on faith. What is the source of reason for the atheistic materialist Darwinist?

He says our minds arose from mindless matter WITHOUT intelligent intervention. This is a belief of his faith because it contradicts all scientific observation, which demonstrates that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. …

Err, no. How “great” a cause or effect is, is not something that is universally scientifically defined. If you say that a cause is “very great”, what does that mean? does it mean it happens on a “large” scale or does it mean it happens with very “high” or “low” temperature or what? It may be “great” in one way and yet “trivial” in another (for example, happen on a large scale but at “modest” temperatures or happen without any noise etc).
Scientists don’t have a handy “greatness meter” that measures and quantifies the “greatness” of a cause or effect.

It can be scientifically observed that the tiny amount of vibration from a noise can cause a vast amount of unstable snow to avalanche all the way down a mountain causing much destruction -I have no idea of how you would quantify “greatness” but I think you would say that this is an example of an effect being “greater” than its cause -right?

…What Cause A does not have to give it cannot give to Effect B. …

???
What does that mean?

… The science of the Darwinist is based on his faith, his philosophy. …

No. It is based on the evidence and reason.

…think our ability to reason came from one of two sources:

1.) It came from preexisting intelligence.

2.) It arose from mindless matter.

I think #1 represents the truth. I don't have enough faith to believe #2. …

-and you don’t need “faith” to believe #2; you need evidence and reason.

…I would encourage you to read the entire chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews in the NT which is dedicated to the matter of faith. …

No thanks, I am not interested in faith; I am interested in evidence and the application of reason.

…I am all for the continued advancement of science study. But I realize that science rests on philosophy and faith. Bad philosophy will result in bad science. Good philosophy will result in good science. …

Rigorous scientific method that all real science is currently based on is “good philosophy “ (if you can call a method a “philosophy &rdquo😉. Can you give me an example of something you call “good science” that is not based on rigorous scientific method?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…But this method rests on something that we can call faith. …

No. What it is based on in this case is his definition of “number” and a definition isn’t “faith“. How can it be “faith” to define number the way he does? Either you agree with his definition, in which case he has absolute deductive proof for all his mathematical theorems becaus example of something you call “good science” that is not based on rigorous scientific method?[/b]

================================

No thanks, I am not interested in faith; I am interested in evidence and the application of reason.

====================================



If you're not interested, neither am I interested in what you have to say.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================

No thanks, I am not interested in faith; I am interested in evidence and the application of reason.

====================================



If you're not interested, neither am I interested in what you have to say.[/b]

Converse with any plankton lately? Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid?