Religion vs. Reason

[Modular]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The creationism glarp has all been throughly debunked by science

Originally posted by: Moonbeam Creationism has been looked at over and over by scientists and found to be totally empty

You say this alot, but in what ways has this happened? Carbon dating? Theoretical science?

Perhaps we should bring up the absolute rates of cosmic dust in the universe and my previously mentioned conflict between evolution and thermodynamics as proofs that science is wrong about evolution...

There are arguments for and against both theories. Try reading the book I allude to in my OP. You might find some interesting arguments there.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Modular
You say this alot, but in what ways has this happened? Carbon dating? Theoretical science?

Perhaps we should bring up the absolute rates of cosmic dust in the universe and my previously mentioned conflict between evolution and thermodynamics as proofs that science is wrong about evolution...

There are arguments for and against both theories. Try reading the book I allude to in my OP. You might find some interesting arguments there.

Do you know what the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. the one that your position might appeal to) states? More importantly, can you tell me why your faith might be contingent on creationism being correct?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The creationism glarp has all been throughly debunked by science

Originally posted by: Moonbeam Creationism has been looked at over and over by scientists and found to be totally empty

You say this alot, but in what ways has this happened? Carbon dating? Theoretical science?

Perhaps we should bring up the absolute rates of cosmic dust in the universe and my previously mentioned conflict between evolution and thermodynamics as proofs that science is wrong about evolution...

There are arguments for and against both theories. Try reading the book I allude to in my OP. You might find some interesting arguments there.

Thanks but I'm going to assume that if the ideas are powerful enough they will attract the attention of people in the field and I will hear about a revolutionary reverse in evolutionary theory. I myself am satisfied with what I have studied and is scientific logic. I feel neither bound by evolution as an absolute must but doubt it not at all.

 

[Modular]

If that is the case Moonbeam, then this is the most ironic post of the year...

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
[Nothing can make you think otherwise about what you wrote because you are committed to it emotionally. You need to think as you do. You are, in other words, biased and not open minded.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Do you know what the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. the one that your position might appeal to) states? More importantly, can you tell me why your faith might be contingent on creationism being correct?

Yes, and specifically the part about the law of entropy. Things in disorder do not naturally come to order. They do however, as energy is spent, fall into a state of increasing disorder.

I never said anything about faith and creationism, that is a jump that you took on your own.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Modular
Yes, and specifically the part about the law of entropy. Things in disorder do not naturally come to order. They do however, as energy is spent, fall into a state of increasing disorder.

The law is not as absolute as you have stated it. It generally states that the entropy of the universe always increases when energy is transformed from one form to another. The other laws of thermo indicate ways in which we can decrease entropy locally, such as by putting in work. The most obvious example is a room, which gets dirty with time as events take place. To reduce the entropy (clutter) of the room, you must input work. The input of this work will still create a net positive entropy change in the universe, though you have decreased the entropy of your room. For your body to stem off entropy, it undergoes many reactions. These reactions change chemical potential energy from things such as glucose into work by feeding cells, allowing them to create new proteins and so on. If the laws of thermo weren't really laws, we wouldn't still teach them. They are called laws because no contradictions have been found* - they apply in all cases. Otherwise they would be called constitutive relations. In essence, things do not increase orderliness without some mechanism to do work. Life has such a feature.

*Some 'laws' are misnomers, such as Fick's 'Laws' of diffusion, Fourier's 'Laws' of heat conduction, Newton's 'Laws' of viscosity, or Hooke's 'Law' of elasticity. These are really constitutive relations that assume linear material behavior. Many materials do not obey these 'laws', yet all of them obey the laws of thermodynamics. Indeed, one constraint on the derivation of a constitutive relation is that it abides by the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Modular
Not true. I believe that the earth was created with age. Perhaps God used evolution to make the earth have age. In other words, evolution is the natural order of things, but it was set into motion by God

Do you have any evidence that has led to your belief? No natural evidence can support the evidence of a supernatural being.

Originally posted by: Modular
I happen to be willing to look at both sides

And you are not unique. Most people here have already looked at both sides and have come to a conclusion. Forming a conclusion does not automatically make one closed minded.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Modular
Not true. I believe that the earth was created with age. Perhaps God used evolution to make the earth have age. In other words, evolution is the natural order of things, but it was set into motion by God

Do you have any evidence that has led to your belief? No natural evidence can support the evidence of a supernatural being.

Originally posted by: Modular
I happen to be willing to look at both sides

And you are not unique. Most people here have already looked at both sides and have come to a conclusion. Forming a conclusion does not automatically make one closed minded.

Yes, I have looked at evidence in the past and reached a conclusion that evolution makes extremely good sense and while I am not attached to that opinion emotionally, I believe it to be the most rational opinion I can as yet hold. Having experienced massive amounts of nonsense in arguing with Creationists, I no longer credit them with much sense. This has been my experience. It can change if new information comes my way regarding Creationism from scientists but I'm not going across the street to listen to more Creationists argue the same old baloney any time soon.

 

[tooltime]

i vote for religion

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Modular
Not true. I believe that the earth was created with age. Perhaps God used evolution to make the earth have age. In other words, evolution is the natural order of things, but it was set into motion by God

Do you have any evidence that has led to your belief? No natural evidence can support the evidence of a supernatural being.

Originally posted by: Modular
I happen to be willing to look at both sides

And you are not unique. Most people here have already looked at both sides and have come to a conclusion. Forming a conclusion does not automatically make one closed minded.

The lack of repeatable, independently, verifiable evidence of a supernatural being is indeed an impossible thing for any one to go against intellectually since when they are asked for proof and they can not reproduce it they will be mocked and rightfully so.

But I tell you this if one was to come with supernatural powers and the ability to use them at will many of those that constantly ask for proof will be among the first to follow such a person even worship him as god since he will give them all the proof their hearts desire in a repeatable, independently, verifiable form even if he was the devil himself.

And to make myself clear when I speak of supernatural powers I am not talking about some statue of Mary crying or some other events subject to interpretation or downright hoaxes but of the type of magical powers that are today relegated to characters in fantasy roleplaying games or gods and goddesses of ancient mythology.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Modular

Originally posted by: Moonbeam The creationism glarp has all been throughly debunked by science

Originally posted by: Moonbeam Creationism has been looked at over and over by scientists and found to be totally empty

You say this alot, but in what ways has this happened? Carbon dating? Theoretical science?

Perhaps we should bring up the absolute rates of cosmic dust in the universe and my previously mentioned conflict between evolution and thermodynamics as proofs that science is wrong about evolution...

There are arguments for and against both theories. Try reading the book I allude to in my OP. You might find some interesting arguments there.

There is no argument for the "theory" of creationism.. because creationism is NOT a scientific theory.. perhaps you should look up the definition of a scientific theory.

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method).

There is 0 evidence to support the "theory" of creationism.. that is why it is not considered a scientific theory, and therefore, not science.

 

[ItsAlive]

All things are relative......the only constant is God. If you would like to resort to a scientific aspect of things then you are resorting to a relative aspect. Relative to what we as relative beings, in a relative dimension or relative world and existance, come to determine by relative means. So how do you factor in a constant.......the only constant is absolute unwavering truth (GOD). That cannot be determined or proven in a relative world/dimension no matter how you look at it. The spiritual world is not bound by laws of relativity and can only be visited in the minds and hearts of those who have faith or a belief in a constant truth. Not suprisingly the aspects of human life that science cannot explain. So no matter what you believe to be true, in this relative world, may or may not be true when pit against the constant in the equation.

On a side note for anyone interested in applying a scientific outlook to christianity......I suggest looking into string theory. It basically explains that all things in this dimension are made of one dimensional particles of energy that vibrate as specific frequencies. Liken to a voice which vibrates or possibly to believers can be attributed to the voice of GOD. If the frequencies of these particles were to be changed the physical structure of the object would be changed into something new. This, to me is a very good scientific argument that creationism is in fact how the earth and everything in this dimension came to be.----Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Futhermore, Einstiens theories of time and space suggest that if a man were to travel faster than the speed of light he would break the barriers of time. This would seem to suggest that the speed of Light is the determining factor of our dimension. Or the point that all things are relative to time.....(aka Light or the speed thereof) and for all of those who know the basis of the Christian religion......GOD is Light.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Perhaps you'd like to create a new thread on this subject where you can do some more waxing :laugh:.

Yes, obviously this discussion doesn't belong in a thread called 'Religion vs. Reason'. Or you realize that I'm right but can't admit it.

I realize you made a pathetic attempt to try and discredit me while ignoring everything I've said that really relates to this thread. No one cares how many credit hours you have. By bringing it up as evidence of your grasp on a subject such as philosophy, it makes you look like a child trying to convince someone he understands Shakespeare because he watched the movie Romeo and Juliet a few times.

Plus you didn't even try and refute my original point about how much of what we regard as in the realm of science was once in the realm of philosophy.

 

[Moonbeam]

All things are relative......the only constant is God.

By what authority? And so on. I can't follow you. What the heck does it mean to say all things are relative. How about all things are absolute? I can see a case either way.

 

[ItsAlive]

All things are relative for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. According to Einstien who was a practicing Jew by the way. If you had read my full post you would have seen that I relate the constant to be absolute unwavering truth. In my belief that is God.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: straightalker
I hear a considerable amount of chatter on this forum from the athiests who want to take away the rights of everyone else to believe in whatever they choose to believe in.

No atheist or non-god-believer...person...cares about what you or anyone else believes in. The problem we have is that christians and muslims and pretty much everyone except apparently the jews, who just want to be left alone to do their thing, want to push their BS organized religious nonsense on all of us, hold us to their standards, roll back scientific and technological advancements 50 years because of some fear of a god.

I don't care if you worship a jar of old mayonaise with "God" written on the label, as long as you don't start trying to force me to eat a sandwich.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
I realize you made a pathetic attempt to try and discredit me while ignoring everything I've said that really relates to this thread. No one cares how many credit hours you have. By bringing it up as evidence of your grasp on a subject such as philosophy, it makes you look like a child trying to convince someone he understands Shakespeare because he watched the movie Romeo and Juliet a few times.

Yes, attack me rather than my statements. That's the way to win an argument!

Plus you didn't even try and refute my original point about how much of what we regard as in the realm of science was once in the realm of philosophy.

That's because it's patently false. Maybe you can give one example - shouldn't be hard based on your purported scope of this paradigm shift.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx

Originally posted by: straightalker
I hear a considerable amount of chatter on this forum from the athiests who want to take away the rights of everyone else to believe in whatever they choose to believe in.

No atheist or non-god-believer...person...cares about what you or anyone else believes in. The problem we have is that christians and muslims and pretty much everyone except apparently the jews, who just want to be left alone to do their thing, want to push their BS organized religious nonsense on all of us, hold us to their standards, roll back scientific and technological advancements 50 years because of some fear of a god.

I don't care if you worship a jar of old mayonaise with "God" written on the label, as long as you don't start trying to force me to eat a sandwich.

He must be one of those Fund A Mental Cases who has a Martry Complex.

 

[LeadMagnet]

marked for later

 

[Used Rugs]

The republican party has been hijacked by right wing Christian nut jobs.
Most are self hating gay men.

What is worse than self-loathing?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx

Originally posted by: straightalker


I don't care if you worship a jar of old mayonaise with "God" written on the label, as long as you don't start trying to force me to eat a sandwich.

Yes, well, for all religions that make a claim of a devine entity--then with regard to reason, and reasonable objective evidence--that old jar of mayonaise has about as good a claim to said reason as any other deity-based religion.

Religious folk need not fear Science, nor objective evidence, nor the natural world.

If the supernatural has more relevance (or is more comforting) to your life than the natural, then no amount of objective reasonable discourse will ever prevail.

The problem is that religiosity historically and currently had/has geopolitical ramifications and consequences. That is unequivocal.

And, if religiosity not only extends beyond the individual, but at the extreme, extends into the governmental structure of sovereign nations--that is when we are in big, big, trouble.

Of course, historically religion and government have been intertwined, mostly due to a struggle for power (economic and otherwise--that is should their even be an otherwise, which I sincerely doubt).

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: hscorpio
I realize you made a pathetic attempt to try and discredit me while ignoring everything I've said that really relates to this thread. No one cares how many credit hours you have. By bringing it up as evidence of your grasp on a subject such as philosophy, it makes you look like a child trying to convince someone he understands Shakespeare because he watched the movie Romeo and Juliet a few times.

Yes, attack me rather than my statements. That's the way to win an argument!

I was not attacking you. I was attacking the method in which you attempted to discredit me without addressing my statements.

Plus you didn't even try and refute my original point about how much of what we regard as in the realm of science was once in the realm of philosophy.

That's because it's patently false. Maybe you can give one example - shouldn't be hard based on your purported scope of this paradigm shift.

There are plenty of examples, you should be asking yourself if there are any examples of major modern scientific fields that were not in some way contemplated by ancient philosophers. Does the term 'Natural Philosophy' ring a bell? When Aristotle contemplated everything in Physics, he was doing so in the realm of philosophy. Today those same ideas he thought about philosophically are now studied under the scientific method in their respective fields. Your confusion lies in the definitions, I hope, because I'm sure you must realize what I'm saying is correct but are just being hard headed. What I mean is that what Aristotle termed metaphysics is what we generally refer to as philosophy today since nearly every other remaining branch of Aristotelian philosophy now falls under what we term science.

 

[straightalker]

Believe what you want to believe. Just respect the other person's right to do the same without violent persecutuon or jihads. That sounds reasonable to me. You?

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx

Originally posted by: straightalker
I hear a considerable amount of chatter on this forum from the athiests who want to take away the rights of everyone else to believe in whatever they choose to believe in.

No atheist or non-god-believer...person...cares about what you or anyone else believes in. The problem we have is that christians and muslims and pretty much everyone except apparently the jews, who just want to be left alone to do their thing, want to push their BS organized religious nonsense on all of us, hold us to their standards, roll back scientific and technological advancements 50 years because of some fear of a god.

I don't care if you worship a jar of old mayonaise with "God" written on the label, as long as you don't start trying to force me to eat a sandwich.

This is a common criticism of the guy in the OP's video. I think it's not the case that athiets/non-believers want to take away anyones rights to believe, instead they want those beliefs to be held accountable in the same way we hold any other belief that has an impact on everyone. By this I mean that no one cares if someone wants to believe that fairies fly around protecting the borders of the US from incoming missiles. But if that person we're somehow elected to president or some other position of power we should all be alarmed I would hope since that person might try and implement defence policy based on his belief in fairies. A silly example I know but its all I can come up with right now.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
I was not attacking you. I was attacking the method in which you attempted to discredit me without addressing my statements.

If your statements are posted as a response to mine but don't actually address my premises, then I have little recourse but to tell you why your position is wrong by forging a different argument. I'm not sure how giving a bit of my personal history is an attack on you.

There are plenty of examples, you should be asking yourself if there are any examples of major modern scientific fields that were not in some way contemplated by ancient philosophers. Does the term 'Natural Philosophy' ring a bell? When Aristotle contemplated everything in Physics, he was doing so in the realm of philosophy. Today those same ideas he thought about philosophically are now studied under the scientific method in their respective fields. Your confusion lies in the definitions, I hope, because I'm sure you must realize what I'm saying is correct but are just being hard headed. What I mean is that what Aristotle termed metaphysics is what we generally refer to as philosophy today since nearly every other remaining branch of Aristotelian philosophy now falls under what we term science.

Aristotle was the first to envision the idea of what we now call analytical mechanics - that the true mechanism for physical interactions is through energy rather than forces. It is true that there is a rather 'philosophical' assumption wrapped in the primary premise of variational calculus (I've even had a professor tell me that a course in variational calculus is 'good for the soul' ). However, this does not imply that Aristotle's method of analyzing scientific principles was the same as his method for pondering abstractions. In fact, he was one of the, if not THE, first to make the distinction between the questions of how and why - the questions of science and philosophy. Simply thinking of things in an abstract form does not qualify as philosophy, though it took Aristotle some time to realize the distinction.