I’m sure there are some insignificant things that I might, but can’t think of any.
Man, I’m such the opposite. I quit looking for evidence as I got older and just relied on solipsism.
My issue with believing things on faith is that it can be used to justify anything.
I see that as a feature rather than a bug.
Do you believe your mother is your mother and have you seen a DNA test?
This isn’t true. Religion is based on metaphysical truth claims. These can’t be debunked or supported with scientific evidence. Hence philosophy and theology being how to discuss religion.
You say it isnt true and then go on to agree with me…
1 Like
No I am saying its based on logic and philisophical proofs. It isn’t based on mindless belief. You can’t prove metaphysics with science, science is merely a tool it can’t arrive at absolute truth. Science has been elevated to something it isn’t here in the west. We can’t use it to discuss ethics or religion or epistemology etc. So saying its not based on evidence because its not based on science is silly. Science can’t tell us anything beyond the physical world. Logical proofs are far more important than anything science can offer us. Science relies on an apriori need for logic etc.
I did not say that it was…
I said it was based on faith.
Faith isn’t mindless.
I do, and there’s the thing, I can do a DNA test if I want.
There is also photo, video and eyewitness(alive) evidence.
Youve not done one so you don’t know you simply have faith she is. You trust testimony as evidence for such a huge part of your life.
Ask the person being raped if it’s arbitrary.
2 Likes
Sure I’ll let you have this one even though this can be proved with the other evidence I mentioned. The difference between my mother and God is that I can verify her existence and run tests to verify that she is my biological mother.
2 Likes
How do you know there is anything beyond the physical world?
Science is about discovering the natural world. Scientific facts are testable and don’t change.
Things like ethics aren’t based on science. It’s based on discussions and negotiations. Ethics will always evolve as society does.
Scientific facts do change. Weve called two massively different things gravity, newtonian gravity as a theory was debunked by Einstein and now we use his model. Both were called facts. Now new models are emerging. Science can’t arrive at absolute truth, science can’t prove something absolutely like a logical or mathematical fact.
There can’t be a square circle. that is an absolute truth. 2+2 is an absolute truth. Science is simply a method for arriving at the best evidence.
Einstein didn’t debunk Newton. Newton’s laws are still used. They are both used in different contexts. Neither of them are facts. They are theories that set out to explain gravity. Gravity is the fact.
Either way the point is you live in the physical world and science so far is the best tool we have to make sense of it.
Not sure how religion is providing you with any absolute truths. There are thousands to choose from. You’re most likely picking the one you relate to the most. Doesn’t make any of it true.
3 Likes
Good for you man. I believe deep down inside everyone knows the truth,
1 Like
Newton never considered time to be a part of physics. It, together with space, formed the stage on which physics performed. When you solved a physics equation, you gave the answer in terms of time and space. Einstein showed that physics affected both time and space. He showed that the stage was part of physics.
Einstein made two big blunders that we now think we understand. In his general theory of relativity, he put in a “cosmological constant” that forced the universe to be static, that is, not expanding or contracting. When Hubble discovered the expanding universe, Einstein called his inclusion of that constant to be “the biggest blunder of my life". Had he not put it in, he would have predicted a changing universe.
The second mistake that Einstein made was in calling the removal of the cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life. Had he left it in, he would have predicted the existence of dark energy! (Dark energy is just another name for the cosmological constant; they are mathematically identical in general relativity.) So his two errors were (1) putting it in, and then (2) taking it out.
Now we are seeing more changes to the model of gravity which will likely make the concept completely unrecognizable in the next 150 years. You can’t of course, call this ever changing concept true no matter how much it changes. What we called gravity will no longer be a fact when the next model changes it completely. Just as the model we used for what we call gravity changed with Newton. I shouldn’t say debunked regarding this but Im just trying to put it in normie terms. I should be more precise.
1 Like
This shows the beauty of science. Always in search of the truth and willing to change.
Like I said Einstein and Newton provided methods to explain the phenomenon we call Gravity. Newton’s laws still work on a relatively small scale while Einstein’s is used on a much larger scale and both break down when you go super small. So much reliable technology that you use all the time is built off of their methods. So while they fall apart in certain contexts, they still hold true in others.
Gravity is a fact regardless of Einstein and Newton. Understanding how gravity works will probably always change as we learn more. Again that’s the beauty of science.
Not sure what this ultimately has to do with faith. Faith is blind belief and only seems acceptable when dealing with religion. Almost everything else in your life you expect evidence. That’s the reason you go to your doctor when sick and not your priest.
3 Likes
There are no absolute truths in science ; there are only approximate truths. Whether a statement, theory, or framework is true or not depends on quantitative factors and how closely you examine or measure the results.
As such relying on science to answer if God exists etc is fallacious and what is called “scientism”.
noun
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.