[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sorry forbes, i must’ve overlooked this post. The difference is that i don’t care if i am wrong or right. Because i can’t know whether i’m right or wrong it would be silly of me to believe that i am right.
My one and only true answer is: i don’t know.[/quote]
I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference.
[quote]pat wrote:
The picture would not be sufficient actually. It may sound silly, but I can’t even prove the picture would exist. I cannot prove anything physical or empirical. I cannot prove the senses have been deceived or that I am not imagining something… There in lies the problem. It sounds silly, but it’s still an unsolvable problem. Hence Des Cartes derived “T think therefore, I am.” He could not prove he exists any other way, but he was wrong… He could only prove existence, not the possession of it…
[/quote]
The mind is not separate from the body. You’d have no problem proving your body exists, and by doing so you’ve proven you exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sorry forbes, i must’ve overlooked this post. The difference is that i don’t care if i am wrong or right. Because i can’t know whether i’m right or wrong it would be silly of me to believe that i am right.
My one and only true answer is: i don’t know.[/quote]
I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference. [/quote]
Belief is not knowledge, pat.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
Let’s just hang with this statement:
“The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.” So define this sigulariry and what properties it posses. It must, by what you said have all the stuff in it that make up this universe, right? How did it get that way? Where did it come from? “Is” is not an acceptable answer.
Until you prove one thing that isn’t caused there must necessary be one. An uncaused universe is more far fetched than a caused one especially since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support it. I understand it’s a theory, but one with no evidence, just a possibility. It just happens to be the theory you hang you hat on.
If all the premises are correct then the uncaused-cause is proven with the cosmological form. Now the burden of proof is on your, you argued an uncaused sigulatiry is the universe. This is not the same as a causer who “sits” outside the universe, completely outside the causal chain. Why? Becuase it has to or it’s not the said Uncaused-cause.
Prove the sigularity exists, further prove it is uncaused.
I have given my arguments to the point of nausea many times. You cannot refute it, so now prove your points.[/quote]
The singularity exists because we exist.
I can’t prove it’s uncaused just like you can’t prove your prime mover exists.
That “is” is not an acceptable answer to you is fine with me. “God” is not an acceptable answer to me either.
Your theoretical proof of an uncaused causer fails because that uncaused causer is not part of the proof; is not part of the logical path. By definition it must exist outside of the causal chain, and because of that falls outside of our scope.
The assertion is not falsifiable, and altough your argument appears logical it’s basic premiss remains unproven.
[/quote]
You mention theoretical proof. Your beliefs are based off of a branch of (what I would like to call) pseudoscience known as theoretical physics, which using mathematical models (i.e a man made concept) to explain phenomena.
You also mention the basic premise of a divine being, though appearing logical remains unproven. Yes, we cannot put God in a vial and say “here he is”. However, though God remains unproven from a scientific point of view, your theories on our existence also remain unproven and doesn’t even make it into “theory” classification but will and always will remain hypotheses.
In the end we both (all of us actually) rely on faith. But according to probability the odds that life, or more accurately the conditions for life to exist, occurring from random chance events or a divine being, I will take the divine being.
[/quote]
Theoretical physics are subtly different from cosmology, which is subtly different from astrophysics, etc… That being said, even the most theoretical of physics relies on mountains of evidence and centuries of observation. Contrary to your unfortunately not uncommon, layman’s perspective they aren’t just making shit up.
Not all of us rely on faith. No matter how many times you and a number of the other religious posters here say it, it will not be true. There are plenty of people out there who investigate the world and develop an understanding of it without ever calling upon faith. Assumptions, guesses, reasonable expectations, even belief… but, though they may be synonyms of faith, they are not faith. Faith requires specifically a suspension of disbelief where the other cognitive tools I mentioned do not.
Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.
[/quote]
Well, it depends on how you are looking at faith. I am going to make the assumption that what Forbes meant is that if your really look at it, almost everything we “know” is not known beyond the shadow of a doubt. In other words, when you understand the fact that almost everything we “know” is in fact a belief then he’s right.
That doesn’t mean that mean there isn’t damn good evidence for scientific reason, theoretical physics or most branches of science, it just means, when you get to the core of all matters, there is no “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” knowledge save very few things, everything else is, technically based on faith…It is an important thing to understand though…[/quote]
No.
No! No! No!
Words are important. While you can use the word “faith” here, it is not the best word to use. In fact, using it this way only serves to belittle the actual process of developing assumptions.
Using “faith” to describe scientific assumptions is a blatant attempt to give legitimacy to religious faith.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sorry forbes, i must’ve overlooked this post. The difference is that i don’t care if i am wrong or right. Because i can’t know whether i’m right or wrong it would be silly of me to believe that i am right.
My one and only true answer is: i don’t know.[/quote]
I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference. [/quote]
Pat you’re getting the old atheist two step. How dare you have faith in a God that you cannot prove to our satisfaction exists. We know it takes faith, and someday they’ll know too. 
Hebrews-11:6
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The picture would not be sufficient actually. It may sound silly, but I can’t even prove the picture would exist. I cannot prove anything physical or empirical. I cannot prove the senses have been deceived or that I am not imagining something… There in lies the problem. It sounds silly, but it’s still an unsolvable problem. Hence Des Cartes derived “T think therefore, I am.” He could not prove he exists any other way, but he was wrong… He could only prove existence, not the possession of it…
[/quote]
The mind is not separate from the body. You’d have no problem proving your body exists, and by doing so you’ve proven you exist.[/quote]
Perhaps, but you cannot “know” it…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sorry forbes, i must’ve overlooked this post. The difference is that i don’t care if i am wrong or right. Because i can’t know whether i’m right or wrong it would be silly of me to believe that i am right.
My one and only true answer is: i don’t know.[/quote]
I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference. [/quote]
Belief is not knowledge, pat.[/quote]
Hence why I did not use the word “believe”.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
Let’s just hang with this statement:
“The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.” So define this sigulariry and what properties it posses. It must, by what you said have all the stuff in it that make up this universe, right? How did it get that way? Where did it come from? “Is” is not an acceptable answer.
Until you prove one thing that isn’t caused there must necessary be one. An uncaused universe is more far fetched than a caused one especially since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support it. I understand it’s a theory, but one with no evidence, just a possibility. It just happens to be the theory you hang you hat on.
If all the premises are correct then the uncaused-cause is proven with the cosmological form. Now the burden of proof is on your, you argued an uncaused sigulatiry is the universe. This is not the same as a causer who “sits” outside the universe, completely outside the causal chain. Why? Becuase it has to or it’s not the said Uncaused-cause.
Prove the sigularity exists, further prove it is uncaused.
I have given my arguments to the point of nausea many times. You cannot refute it, so now prove your points.[/quote]
The singularity exists because we exist.
I can’t prove it’s uncaused just like you can’t prove your prime mover exists.
That “is” is not an acceptable answer to you is fine with me. “God” is not an acceptable answer to me either.
Your theoretical proof of an uncaused causer fails because that uncaused causer is not part of the proof; is not part of the logical path. By definition it must exist outside of the causal chain, and because of that falls outside of our scope.
The assertion is not falsifiable, and altough your argument appears logical it’s basic premiss remains unproven.
[/quote]
You mention theoretical proof. Your beliefs are based off of a branch of (what I would like to call) pseudoscience known as theoretical physics, which using mathematical models (i.e a man made concept) to explain phenomena.
You also mention the basic premise of a divine being, though appearing logical remains unproven. Yes, we cannot put God in a vial and say “here he is”. However, though God remains unproven from a scientific point of view, your theories on our existence also remain unproven and doesn’t even make it into “theory” classification but will and always will remain hypotheses.
In the end we both (all of us actually) rely on faith. But according to probability the odds that life, or more accurately the conditions for life to exist, occurring from random chance events or a divine being, I will take the divine being.
[/quote]
Theoretical physics are subtly different from cosmology, which is subtly different from astrophysics, etc… That being said, even the most theoretical of physics relies on mountains of evidence and centuries of observation. Contrary to your unfortunately not uncommon, layman’s perspective they aren’t just making shit up.
Not all of us rely on faith. No matter how many times you and a number of the other religious posters here say it, it will not be true. There are plenty of people out there who investigate the world and develop an understanding of it without ever calling upon faith. Assumptions, guesses, reasonable expectations, even belief… but, though they may be synonyms of faith, they are not faith. Faith requires specifically a suspension of disbelief where the other cognitive tools I mentioned do not.
Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.
[/quote]
Well, it depends on how you are looking at faith. I am going to make the assumption that what Forbes meant is that if your really look at it, almost everything we “know” is not known beyond the shadow of a doubt. In other words, when you understand the fact that almost everything we “know” is in fact a belief then he’s right.
That doesn’t mean that mean there isn’t damn good evidence for scientific reason, theoretical physics or most branches of science, it just means, when you get to the core of all matters, there is no “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” knowledge save very few things, everything else is, technically based on faith…It is an important thing to understand though…[/quote]
No.
No! No! No!
Words are important. While you can use the word “faith” here, it is not the best word to use. In fact, using it this way only serves to belittle the actual process of developing assumptions.
Using “faith” to describe scientific assumptions is a blatant attempt to give legitimacy to religious faith. [/quote]
Philosophically speaking, faith is a fine word to use because it simply means belief in things you cannot prove deductively.
But to satisfy I will stick with the word “belief”. Where are unless you can know all the outcomes of a particular causal event that is and ever will be, you can’t be sure just based on few examples a.k.a. experiments.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The picture would not be sufficient actually. It may sound silly, but I can’t even prove the picture would exist. I cannot prove anything physical or empirical. I cannot prove the senses have been deceived or that I am not imagining something… There in lies the problem. It sounds silly, but it’s still an unsolvable problem. Hence Des Cartes derived “T think therefore, I am.” He could not prove he exists any other way, but he was wrong… He could only prove existence, not the possession of it…
[/quote]
The mind is not separate from the body. You’d have no problem proving your body exists, and by doing so you’ve proven you exist.[/quote]
Perhaps, but you cannot “know” it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem[/quote]
This problem is really a non-issue. Seventeenth century philosophers did not have acces to the medical apparatus we have now. Our knowledge on the brain-mind connection grows every year, and there’s also a growing consensus amongst scientists that our self/mind is a faculty of the brain.
“The debate regarding the relationship between mind and brain opened by Descartes now seems to be at least partially settled by the acquisition of our knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. We can now begin to understand this complex system that can control the fingers of a violinist and also send man to the moon. Descartes did not know that the brain is constructed and maintained by both genes and experience, and that it constantly changes through the process of evolution.”
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sorry forbes, i must’ve overlooked this post. The difference is that i don’t care if i am wrong or right. Because i can’t know whether i’m right or wrong it would be silly of me to believe that i am right.
My one and only true answer is: i don’t know.[/quote]
I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference. [/quote]
Belief is not knowledge, pat.[/quote]
Hence why I did not use the word “believe”.
[/quote]
What exactly do you claim to know then?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
3. Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.[/quote]
I suppose if there is a God, the worst you can say about him is that he’s a pretty big underachiever.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
Let’s just hang with this statement:
“The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.” So define this sigulariry and what properties it posses. It must, by what you said have all the stuff in it that make up this universe, right? How did it get that way? Where did it come from? “Is” is not an acceptable answer.
Until you prove one thing that isn’t caused there must necessary be one. An uncaused universe is more far fetched than a caused one especially since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support it. I understand it’s a theory, but one with no evidence, just a possibility. It just happens to be the theory you hang you hat on.
If all the premises are correct then the uncaused-cause is proven with the cosmological form. Now the burden of proof is on your, you argued an uncaused sigulatiry is the universe. This is not the same as a causer who “sits” outside the universe, completely outside the causal chain. Why? Becuase it has to or it’s not the said Uncaused-cause.
Prove the sigularity exists, further prove it is uncaused.
I have given my arguments to the point of nausea many times. You cannot refute it, so now prove your points.[/quote]
The singularity exists because we exist.
I can’t prove it’s uncaused just like you can’t prove your prime mover exists.
That “is” is not an acceptable answer to you is fine with me. “God” is not an acceptable answer to me either.
Your theoretical proof of an uncaused causer fails because that uncaused causer is not part of the proof; is not part of the logical path. By definition it must exist outside of the causal chain, and because of that falls outside of our scope.
The assertion is not falsifiable, and altough your argument appears logical it’s basic premiss remains unproven.
[/quote]
You mention theoretical proof. Your beliefs are based off of a branch of (what I would like to call) pseudoscience known as theoretical physics, which using mathematical models (i.e a man made concept) to explain phenomena.
You also mention the basic premise of a divine being, though appearing logical remains unproven. Yes, we cannot put God in a vial and say “here he is”. However, though God remains unproven from a scientific point of view, your theories on our existence also remain unproven and doesn’t even make it into “theory” classification but will and always will remain hypotheses.
In the end we both (all of us actually) rely on faith. But according to probability the odds that life, or more accurately the conditions for life to exist, occurring from random chance events or a divine being, I will take the divine being.
[/quote]
Theoretical physics are subtly different from cosmology, which is subtly different from astrophysics, etc… That being said, even the most theoretical of physics relies on mountains of evidence and centuries of observation. Contrary to your unfortunately not uncommon, layman’s perspective they aren’t just making shit up.
Not all of us rely on faith. No matter how many times you and a number of the other religious posters here say it, it will not be true. There are plenty of people out there who investigate the world and develop an understanding of it without ever calling upon faith. Assumptions, guesses, reasonable expectations, even belief… but, though they may be synonyms of faith, they are not faith. Faith requires specifically a suspension of disbelief where the other cognitive tools I mentioned do not.
Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.
[/quote]
Well, it depends on how you are looking at faith. I am going to make the assumption that what Forbes meant is that if your really look at it, almost everything we “know” is not known beyond the shadow of a doubt. In other words, when you understand the fact that almost everything we “know” is in fact a belief then he’s right.
That doesn’t mean that mean there isn’t damn good evidence for scientific reason, theoretical physics or most branches of science, it just means, when you get to the core of all matters, there is no “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” knowledge save very few things, everything else is, technically based on faith…It is an important thing to understand though…[/quote]
No.
No! No! No!
Words are important. While you can use the word “faith” here, it is not the best word to use. In fact, using it this way only serves to belittle the actual process of developing assumptions.
Using “faith” to describe scientific assumptions is a blatant attempt to give legitimacy to religious faith. [/quote]
Philosophically speaking, faith is a fine word to use because it simply means belief in things you cannot prove deductively.
But to satisfy I will stick with the word “belief”. Where are unless you can know all the outcomes of a particular causal event that is and ever will be, you can’t be sure just based on few examples a.k.a. experiments.[/quote]
Why not just use the words that fit best? Why must you attempt to force-fit less suited words?
I don’t know if I said it here or another thread… anyway it’s worth a repeat:
I don’t think that atheists or skeptics of my ilk organize memory and knowledge in the same way that someone who is “of faith” does. I don’t mean this to be pejorative. It is an honest observation that I am interested in following up on in psychiatric literature when I have the time.
I also don’t find that religious people easily accept the idea that our minds might function differently. I can’t remember how many times I have been told, “well, you have to have faith in something.”
I don’t. I simply do not have faith in anything. I find it to not be a useful concept.
I certainly have unexamined assumptions. However, there is nothing that I am unwilling to examine and consider changing my mind about. Faith requires an acceptance of something as being true without good evidence to support it. There is nothing in my life or my mind that fits this description.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
3. Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.[/quote]
I suppose if there is a God, the worst you can say about him is that he’s a pretty big underachiever.[/quote]
Especially when you consider the ultra parochial perspective that the earth is the only planet in the entire universe that is populated by intelligent life. What a colossal waste of resources.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
Let’s just hang with this statement:
“The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.” So define this sigulariry and what properties it posses. It must, by what you said have all the stuff in it that make up this universe, right? How did it get that way? Where did it come from? “Is” is not an acceptable answer.
Until you prove one thing that isn’t caused there must necessary be one. An uncaused universe is more far fetched than a caused one especially since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support it. I understand it’s a theory, but one with no evidence, just a possibility. It just happens to be the theory you hang you hat on.
If all the premises are correct then the uncaused-cause is proven with the cosmological form. Now the burden of proof is on your, you argued an uncaused sigulatiry is the universe. This is not the same as a causer who “sits” outside the universe, completely outside the causal chain. Why? Becuase it has to or it’s not the said Uncaused-cause.
Prove the sigularity exists, further prove it is uncaused.
I have given my arguments to the point of nausea many times. You cannot refute it, so now prove your points.[/quote]
The singularity exists because we exist.
I can’t prove it’s uncaused just like you can’t prove your prime mover exists.
That “is” is not an acceptable answer to you is fine with me. “God” is not an acceptable answer to me either.
Your theoretical proof of an uncaused causer fails because that uncaused causer is not part of the proof; is not part of the logical path. By definition it must exist outside of the causal chain, and because of that falls outside of our scope.
The assertion is not falsifiable, and altough your argument appears logical it’s basic premiss remains unproven.
[/quote]
You mention theoretical proof. Your beliefs are based off of a branch of (what I would like to call) pseudoscience known as theoretical physics, which using mathematical models (i.e a man made concept) to explain phenomena.
You also mention the basic premise of a divine being, though appearing logical remains unproven. Yes, we cannot put God in a vial and say “here he is”. However, though God remains unproven from a scientific point of view, your theories on our existence also remain unproven and doesn’t even make it into “theory” classification but will and always will remain hypotheses.
In the end we both (all of us actually) rely on faith. But according to probability the odds that life, or more accurately the conditions for life to exist, occurring from random chance events or a divine being, I will take the divine being.
[/quote]
Theoretical physics are subtly different from cosmology, which is subtly different from astrophysics, etc… That being said, even the most theoretical of physics relies on mountains of evidence and centuries of observation. Contrary to your unfortunately not uncommon, layman’s perspective they aren’t just making shit up.
Not all of us rely on faith. No matter how many times you and a number of the other religious posters here say it, it will not be true. There are plenty of people out there who investigate the world and develop an understanding of it without ever calling upon faith. Assumptions, guesses, reasonable expectations, even belief… but, though they may be synonyms of faith, they are not faith. Faith requires specifically a suspension of disbelief where the other cognitive tools I mentioned do not.
Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.
[/quote]
Well, it depends on how you are looking at faith. I am going to make the assumption that what Forbes meant is that if your really look at it, almost everything we “know” is not known beyond the shadow of a doubt. In other words, when you understand the fact that almost everything we “know” is in fact a belief then he’s right.
That doesn’t mean that mean there isn’t damn good evidence for scientific reason, theoretical physics or most branches of science, it just means, when you get to the core of all matters, there is no “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” knowledge save very few things, everything else is, technically based on faith…It is an important thing to understand though…[/quote]
No.
No! No! No!
Words are important. While you can use the word “faith” here, it is not the best word to use. In fact, using it this way only serves to belittle the actual process of developing assumptions.
Using “faith” to describe scientific assumptions is a blatant attempt to give legitimacy to religious faith. [/quote]
Philosophically speaking, faith is a fine word to use because it simply means belief in things you cannot prove deductively.
But to satisfy I will stick with the word “belief”. Where are unless you can know all the outcomes of a particular causal event that is and ever will be, you can’t be sure just based on few examples a.k.a. experiments.[/quote]
Why not just use the words that fit best? Why must you attempt to force-fit less suited words?
I don’t know if I said it here or another thread… anyway it’s worth a repeat:
I don’t think that atheists or skeptics of my ilk organize memory and knowledge in the same way that someone who is “of faith” does. I don’t mean this to be pejorative. It is an honest observation that I am interested in following up on in psychiatric literature when I have the time.
I also don’t find that religious people easily accept the idea that our minds might function differently. I can’t remember how many times I have been told, “well, you have to have faith in something.”
I don’t. I simply do not have faith in anything. I find it to not be a useful concept.
I certainly have unexamined assumptions. However, there is nothing that I am unwilling to examine and consider changing my mind about. Faith requires an acceptance of something as being true without good evidence to support it. There is nothing in my life or my mind that fits this description. [/quote]
You’re really touchy about that word “faith”?
I cannot be certain, but I have faith that you somewhere fall into at least one of these definitions:
â??-Faithâ??/feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
â??noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Now, the point is simply this, you must recognize that almost everything you know is actually just something you believe. If you rely on knowledge that is just a belief, there is some element of faith involved. That’s not the same as religious faith or what most people attribute to religious faith.
For instance, if you have a scientific experiment that yields a reliable result, you have evidence that this experiment works, but you have faith in the method you used to achieve the result. You believe in the method you used to attain the result is the right one, that will produce the result every time.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The picture would not be sufficient actually. It may sound silly, but I can’t even prove the picture would exist. I cannot prove anything physical or empirical. I cannot prove the senses have been deceived or that I am not imagining something… There in lies the problem. It sounds silly, but it’s still an unsolvable problem. Hence Des Cartes derived “T think therefore, I am.” He could not prove he exists any other way, but he was wrong… He could only prove existence, not the possession of it…
[/quote]
The mind is not separate from the body. You’d have no problem proving your body exists, and by doing so you’ve proven you exist.[/quote]
Perhaps, but you cannot “know” it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem[/quote]
This problem is really a non-issue. Seventeenth century philosophers did not have acces to the medical apparatus we have now. Our knowledge on the brain-mind connection grows every year, and there’s also a growing consensus amongst scientists that our self/mind is a faculty of the brain.
“The debate regarding the relationship between mind and brain opened by Descartes now seems to be at least partially settled by the acquisition of our knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. We can now begin to understand this complex system that can control the fingers of a violinist and also send man to the moon. Descartes did not know that the brain is constructed and maintained by both genes and experience, and that it constantly changes through the process of evolution.”
http://www.clinmedres.org/cgi/content/full/1/4/327
[/quote]
No, that does not settle the problem at all. Most studies in epistemology still make this distinction. You will always have some kook thinking he solved the complex issues, but the issue remains. The object of a thought is not the same as the electrochemical concoction that goes on in a brain. If so, scientists could see more than waves of electro chemical reactions, the would be able to tell you the object of the thought.
You need a brain to have thought, but with out something to think about, it would be useless.
Further, the mind-body problem will never be solved by science because it’s not a matter of science. It’s philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Science is merely a branch of philosophy, hence why scientists get PHd’s.
Pat, even going with your broad definition of faith though, wouldn’t you agree that probability is a spectrum rather than black and white? In other words, lacking perfect knowledge of a thing doesn’t imply that all hypotheses are equally plausible. A belief with very little supporting evidence might only be 5% likely to be true, while a belief with a lot of supporting evidence might be 95% likely to be true. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be equating all hypotheses as being equally likely, despite the enormous differences in supporting evidence for those hypotheses.
Religious beliefs have very little if any supporting evidence, and thus are far less likely to be true than heavily researched scientific theories, even when perfect knowledge is lacking in both cases.
Pat,
Those are some pretty broad definitions. Sure, there are one or two that I have experienced. However, they do not match with that you were trying to characterize me as experiencing… perhaps “trust or confidence in a person or thing.” But, the Oxford English dictionary qualifies this exact definition with the word, “complete”… “complete trust or confidence in a person or thing.” Since it comes from THE dictionary, I’m going to stand by this definition rather than your somewhat loose one.
You can get into arguing degrees of faith, etc… but, when it comes down to it, your original point was to attempt to show that even atheists experience something similar to your religious faith in a god, in their interaction with the world.
I am telling you, that at least for me, this is not the case. Everything is open to evaluation, and I do not have complete trust or confidence in anything or anyone. To do so would be foolish.
Yes, I am touchy about the word. I find the concept repugnant and do not wish to be characterized as someone who relies on that type of intellectual laziness.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This problem is really a non-issue. Seventeenth century philosophers did not have acces to the medical apparatus we have now. Our knowledge on the brain-mind connection grows every year, and there’s also a growing consensus amongst scientists that our self/mind is a faculty of the brain.
“The debate regarding the relationship between mind and brain opened by Descartes now seems to be at least partially settled by the acquisition of our knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. We can now begin to understand this complex system that can control the fingers of a violinist and also send man to the moon. Descartes did not know that the brain is constructed and maintained by both genes and experience, and that it constantly changes through the process of evolution.”
http://www.clinmedres.org/cgi/content/full/1/4/327
[/quote]
No, that does not settle the problem at all. Most studies in epistemology still make this distinction. You will always have some kook thinking he solved the complex issues, but the issue remains. The object of a thought is not the same as the electrochemical concoction that goes on in a brain. If so, scientists could see more than waves of electro chemical reactions, the would be able to tell you the object of the thought.
You need a brain to have thought, but with out something to think about, it would be useless.
Further, the mind-body problem will never be solved by science because it’s not a matter of science. It’s philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Science is merely a branch of philosophy, hence why scientists get PHd’s. [/quote]
Try to look at the problem from this angle:
I also would still like to know what you meant in that other post by claiming, “I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference.”
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This problem is really a non-issue. Seventeenth century philosophers did not have acces to the medical apparatus we have now. Our knowledge on the brain-mind connection grows every year, and there’s also a growing consensus amongst scientists that our self/mind is a faculty of the brain.
“The debate regarding the relationship between mind and brain opened by Descartes now seems to be at least partially settled by the acquisition of our knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. We can now begin to understand this complex system that can control the fingers of a violinist and also send man to the moon. Descartes did not know that the brain is constructed and maintained by both genes and experience, and that it constantly changes through the process of evolution.”
http://www.clinmedres.org/cgi/content/full/1/4/327
[/quote]
No, that does not settle the problem at all. Most studies in epistemology still make this distinction. You will always have some kook thinking he solved the complex issues, but the issue remains. The object of a thought is not the same as the electrochemical concoction that goes on in a brain. If so, scientists could see more than waves of electro chemical reactions, the would be able to tell you the object of the thought.
You need a brain to have thought, but with out something to think about, it would be useless.
Further, the mind-body problem will never be solved by science because it’s not a matter of science. It’s philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Science is merely a branch of philosophy, hence why scientists get PHd’s. [/quote]
Try to look at the problem from this angle:
I also would still like to know what you meant in that other post by claiming, “I don’t know much, but this I do know…That’s our difference.”
[/quote]
You are incorrect. If the thinker is the thought than the thought is the thinker. One it leaves no room to think of something other than “yourself”. Two, it’s circular reasoning (someghing you do a lot of it seems)
Awareness is a thought, you cannot be aware with out thinking, try it a tell me how it goes…
Thought is not the object, it is the container of the object of the thought. You cannot think of a screwdriver with out thinking about it.
Brains are a sensory organ, granted a very complicated one, but is nonetheless still a sensory organ. It can create nothing on it’s own. It assembles and manipulates the data it has and gets, but it can create nothing…Go ahead give me a thought that has never been thought before and has no precedence for prior existence…
You did not read the mind-body article because you would not have just said what you said. Des Cartes didn’t identify the problem, he tried to solve it. He failed, but nonetheless in the process he did discover some important things. Ramifications that still affect us to this day.
Nobody has solved it really, but Hume and Kant took these things to a new level.
One thing he did reveal, is that you cannot fully trust things that can be deceived. Your senses and even your brain can be fooled, if it can be you have to take it out of the equation. For instance, if I gave you 100 mcg of LSD, you brain and all your senses would be fooled mightily, but then you could not say that that wasn’t real and your natural state is real. After all you are dependent on your chemicals, who knows if they are set right in the first place? And if so, then is someone who’s chemical make up is different than yours, are they wrong in what they sense vs. what you sense? That is why you cannot prove you exist deductively, though it is likely you do, you can’t prove it.
What I meant is that I know there is an Uncaused-causer to this and all creation that it is God I believe in. I can prove cosmology deductively, It’s premises and conclusions have withstood for over 2000 years refuted. That’s a pretty good track record as it has come across the greatest minds the world has ever known and stood up to it. I have other evidences that are personal in nature and I really couldn’t produce an argument out of it, even if I could. But I am comfortable in saying I know it…
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Pat,
Those are some pretty broad definitions. Sure, there are one or two that I have experienced. However, they do not match with that you were trying to characterize me as experiencing… perhaps “trust or confidence in a person or thing.” But, the Oxford English dictionary qualifies this exact definition with the word, “complete”… “complete trust or confidence in a person or thing.” Since it comes from THE dictionary, I’m going to stand by this definition rather than your somewhat loose one.
You can get into arguing degrees of faith, etc… but, when it comes down to it, your original point was to attempt to show that even atheists experience something similar to your religious faith in a god, in their interaction with the world.
I am telling you, that at least for me, this is not the case. Everything is open to evaluation, and I do not have complete trust or confidence in anything or anyone. To do so would be foolish.
Yes, I am touchy about the word. I find the concept repugnant and do not wish to be characterized as someone who relies on that type of intellectual laziness. [/quote]
They are broad, but I accept the fact that you do not accept “things” with out some degree of some proof or evidence, nor do I. Otherwise we are getting caught up in semantics.