Concept of Infinity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
302

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists.

303

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists. [/quote]

Right, my point was that the probability the sun will rise tomorrow is far higher than the probability that a person’s religious beliefs are true. Neither is perfect knowledge, but the former belief has far more supportive, reliable, objective evidence than the latter belief.

304

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists. [/quote]

Right, my point was that the probability the sun will rise tomorrow is far higher than the probability that a person’s religious beliefs are true. Neither is perfect knowledge, but the former belief has far more supportive, reliable, objective evidence than the latter belief.[/quote]

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…

305

It could be natural, but there’s still very little empirical evidence for it, compared to the supporting evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Because there’s less evidence, the probability of it being true is correspondingly less.

306

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Try to look at the problem from this angle:

  1. The self that thinks, is thought itself. IOW, the thinker is thought.
  • This negates the idea that there’s a separate entity that has thoughts.
  1. There is awareness without thought. IOW, without thought one is not a bumbling idiot.
  • This has to be experienced before you can understand what it means. It means that thinking itself is not the be-all and end-all of existence.
  1. Your assertion that thought is somehow an object because it requires a subject, otherwise it’d be useless, is false.
  • Thinking is useful, but it’s also a byproduct of our big brains. The importance we place on the thinker [self] is fed by the belief in an eternal soul. Changes in the brain affects changes in the self. Profound changes in the brain affect profound changes in the self.

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)[/quote]

It’s not circular reasoning pat. It goes to show that there’s one instance of a person; the body. There’s not something like the body and a gosymer of a person based in thought separate from the body.

Awareness is not a thought; there can be awareness free of thought. It goes like this, [ ], silence and clarity.

What does this even mean?

[quote]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]

Because i think there’s no separation between the body, mind and thought, there’s also no mind/body problem. I can prove i exist because i can prove my body exists. It’s that simple.

Thank you for clarifying your earlier remark pat.

307

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists. [/quote]

Right, my point was that the probability the sun will rise tomorrow is far higher than the probability that a person’s religious beliefs are true. Neither is perfect knowledge, but the former belief has far more supportive, reliable, objective evidence than the latter belief.[/quote]

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…[/quote]

Interesting… If it’s natural, then there is likely to be an evidentiary chain, no?

This, BTW, is the first time that I’ve ever met a religious person who presented it this way. Most seem to fall back on a “supernatural” definition to avoid the rigors of science. I would like to hear more about this.

308
309

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Try to look at the problem from this angle:

  1. The self that thinks, is thought itself. IOW, the thinker is thought.
  • This negates the idea that there’s a separate entity that has thoughts.
  1. There is awareness without thought. IOW, without thought one is not a bumbling idiot.
  • This has to be experienced before you can understand what it means. It means that thinking itself is not the be-all and end-all of existence.
  1. Your assertion that thought is somehow an object because it requires a subject, otherwise it’d be useless, is false.
  • Thinking is useful, but it’s also a byproduct of our big brains. The importance we place on the thinker [self] is fed by the belief in an eternal soul. Changes in the brain affects changes in the self. Profound changes in the brain affect profound changes in the self.

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)[/quote]

It’s not circular reasoning pat. It goes to show that there’s one instance of a person; the body. There’s not something like the body and a gosymer of a person based in thought separate from the body.

Awareness is not a thought; there can be awareness free of thought. It goes like this, [ ], silence and clarity.

What does this even mean?

[quote]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]

Because i think there’s no separation between the body, mind and thought, there’s also no mind/body problem. I can prove i exist because i can prove my body exists. It’s that simple.

Thank you for clarifying your earlier remark pat.
[/quote]

Prove your body exists, then. Make the argument and I will then happily destroy it.

You can thing the mind-body problem does not exist, your entitled to that, but believing it and it being true are not the same thing. You simply don’t understand it, that is all. I did spend a great deal of time in formal education on the matter, so I do have that advantage. I am not really sure how to explain it so you understand it. It is a complicated thing to get and I could write pages and pages on it, but I will spare you. Unlike Des Cartes I don’t think the mind and body are separate in the same way that the mind exists independently of the body. That’s one of the reasons why I said he was wrong. But the objects, or subject of thoughts do exist independently. For instance, think about this if nobody discovered Calculus, would it exist? The answer is of course, yes, can you tell me why?

310

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists. [/quote]

Right, my point was that the probability the sun will rise tomorrow is far higher than the probability that a person’s religious beliefs are true. Neither is perfect knowledge, but the former belief has far more supportive, reliable, objective evidence than the latter belief.[/quote]

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…[/quote]

Interesting… If it’s natural, then there is likely to be an evidentiary chain, no?

This, BTW, is the first time that I’ve ever met a religious person who presented it this way. Most seem to fall back on a “supernatural” definition to avoid the rigors of science. I would like to hear more about this. [/quote]

If you look at cosmology, then everything is an evidentiary chain…All things roll up to an uncaused-cause. Material and immaterial things roll up to uncaused-cause. It’s also why one and not multiples.

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…

311

Actually, Calculus was invented, not discovered. It’s embarrassing how I know this. Back in high school, I was sterling scholar in Math and was asked by a group of college math professors whether math was created or discovered. I said it was discovered, and they set me right :slight_smile:

312

[quote]forlife wrote:
Actually, Calculus was invented, not discovered. It’s embarrassing how I know this. Back in high school, I was sterling scholar in Math and was asked by a group of college math professors whether math was created or discovered. I said it was discovered, and they set me right :)[/quote]

Eh. Depends on how you define it. But the basis of it, integrals and derivatives, exist as a natural part of the behavior of the universe. So, I would call it discovered.

313

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists. [/quote]

Right, my point was that the probability the sun will rise tomorrow is far higher than the probability that a person’s religious beliefs are true. Neither is perfect knowledge, but the former belief has far more supportive, reliable, objective evidence than the latter belief.[/quote]

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…[/quote]

Interesting… If it’s natural, then there is likely to be an evidentiary chain, no?

This, BTW, is the first time that I’ve ever met a religious person who presented it this way. Most seem to fall back on a “supernatural” definition to avoid the rigors of science. I would like to hear more about this. [/quote]

If you look at cosmology, then everything is an evidentiary chain…All things roll up to an uncaused-cause. Material and immaterial things roll up to uncaused-cause. It’s also why one and not multiples.

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…
[/quote]

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.

You’ve taken it out of the realm of evolution and fit it into particle physics. This does have more plausibility than the standard, Intelligent Design model of the idea.

This has probably been covered before, but then what is your theology?

314

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.

315

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

Except that it consistently is disproved by further investigation.

Anyway, it is reasonable to argue that the only gap that really exists in quantum mechanics is that of human discomfort with the concept.

316

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

Except that it consistently is disproved by further investigation.

Anyway, it is reasonable to argue that the only gap that really exists in quantum mechanics is that of human discomfort with the concept. [/quote]

No, there are big gaps in quantum. But inherent gaps in the understanding of science is what I’m discussing. INHERENT. Science never fully answers the question “why?” It cannot by definition. The only thing it ever “reduces” is the terms used to discus the “god gap”.

For example.
Originally people didn’t understand lightning, so they said god(s) did it.

Now, because of science we know lightning is composed of electrons in a cloud attracted by a positive charge on the ground. And that when the voltage is sufficient the electrons jump to the ground charge.

BUT that never really answers the same question the “god did it” belief does. Now I simply have to ask, why are electrons attracted to protons? The gap in understanding is still there.

Great, you figured out how gravity works, but why gravity in the first place?

Science doesn’t fill in those gaps. They are still there, the terms are just different.

317

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
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. [/quote]

Yes it was very broad but the point is only illustrate a difference between knowledge and faith or belief. When you look at what you really know, I mean you know it, it’s very little. Kant kind of threw his hands up in the air at one point. He conceded that there is a reality that exists and we may or may not know it.
As far as what I call functional belief, it’s the stuff that gets us by everyday. The sun will come up, the atmosphere will be there and is still breathable, that I will be able to breath it, that gasoline exposed to compressed air and spark will explode and make my car go, etc. I believe all this stuff strongly, but I can’t really prove any of it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

There are empirical evidences of religious stuff, not much, but it exists. [/quote]

Right, my point was that the probability the sun will rise tomorrow is far higher than the probability that a person’s religious beliefs are true. Neither is perfect knowledge, but the former belief has far more supportive, reliable, objective evidence than the latter belief.[/quote]

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…[/quote]

Interesting… If it’s natural, then there is likely to be an evidentiary chain, no?

This, BTW, is the first time that I’ve ever met a religious person who presented it this way. Most seem to fall back on a “supernatural” definition to avoid the rigors of science. I would like to hear more about this. [/quote]

If you look at cosmology, then everything is an evidentiary chain…All things roll up to an uncaused-cause. Material and immaterial things roll up to uncaused-cause. It’s also why one and not multiples.

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…
[/quote]

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.

You’ve taken it out of the realm of evolution and fit it into particle physics. This does have more plausibility than the standard, Intelligent Design model of the idea.

This has probably been covered before, but then what is your theology?[/quote]

That is not “God of gaps” how, pray-tell did you get that idea? Which gap did I use God to fill exactly?

318

The “uncaused cause” and the “transition point between the physical and the metaphysical”

319

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

That’s not, God of gaps is a terrible argument. It might have been fine for cave men, but it will never survive scrutiny. I actually am not sure how he drew the conclusion of the God of gaps.

320

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

Except that it consistently is disproved by further investigation.

Anyway, it is reasonable to argue that the only gap that really exists in quantum mechanics is that of human discomfort with the concept. [/quote]

No, there are big gaps in quantum. But inherent gaps in the understanding of science is what I’m discussing. INHERENT. Science never fully answers the question “why?” It cannot by definition. The only thing it ever “reduces” is the terms used to discus the “god gap”.

For example.
Originally people didn’t understand lightning, so they said god(s) did it.

Now, because of science we know lightning is composed of electrons in a cloud attracted by a positive charge on the ground. And that when the voltage is sufficient the electrons jump to the ground charge.

BUT that never really answers the same question the “god did it” belief does. Now I simply have to ask, why are electrons attracted to protons? The gap in understanding is still there.

Great, you figured out how gravity works, but why gravity in the first place?

Science doesn’t fill in those gaps. They are still there, the terms are just different.[/quote]

Hmm… I disagree, and to a degree I think you’ve proved my point. The example of lighting does so quite well in fact.

To me, it is more plausible that we will continue to better understand the universe than it is that we will ever prove the existence of or understand a god. This is why I find reliance on theology, mysticism, spirituality or any other superstition to shape your world view to be foolish.

Could there be a god? Sure.

Does anyone have the answer to this question and also understand the nature of such an entity? I can say with almost 100% certainty, “no.”

321

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

That’s not, God of gaps is a terrible argument. It might have been fine for cave men, but it will never survive scrutiny. I actually am not sure how he drew the conclusion of the God of gaps.[/quote]

I never said you believed in a god of the gaps. I was pointing out that I don’t think it’s as week an argument as most people think. And certainly not weak enough to dismiss off hand like he did. See my other post.