Do you believe......

Sangre · 06-01-2007 08:22PM

What does 'right in his opinion' mean?

I really can't make out what you're trying to say or whether that phrase says anything at all.

If its that he correctly thinks what his opinion is? If so, so what? It could still be wrong which is where the discussion should lie. Just because something is currently unprovable is no reason not to discuss the matter, especially one with such an influence on society.

I really can't make out what you're trying to say or whether that phrase says anything at all.

P.s good thread.

andrew · 06-01-2007 08:25PM

I think i just means that its all a matter of opinion, and since neither belief can be disproven then all you can have is an opinion which you both believe to be right.

Dave! · 06-01-2007 08:28PM

InFront wrote:

Absolutely, yes. The universe is, quitecertainly at this moment (event!), larger than out comprehension, and supernatural life has a probability attached. But so equally has the idea that there is a God. Why should there be a little green man called an alien, and not a little green man called God/ Allah/ Yahweh/ Elah/ DaveMcG?

There's no reason to believe in god other than the fact that we don't know where the universe came from. I don't really see how you can create a "possibility" of god existing based on no evidence and no factors other than the fact that we are here.

Whereas when you're talking about life on other planets, you have to take into account the fact that life as we know requires certain environmental factors to begin. Evidentally earth possesses these factors as life began here and evolved into what you see today.

Now when you consider that there are billions and billions of planets, and a finite number of conditions that lead to creation of life, it becomes statistically quite likely for life to exist elsewhere.

InFront wrote:

What about the impossible evidence that cannot be used, but cannot be disregarded: life before the big bang? We believe that, in modern physical terms, there was no time and no space before the big bang, that all existence was contained in one infintely small dot . Bit what preceded the dot? Previous cycles of the universe? What preceded all that? Surely there is probability attached to the concept that "something" began everything. What began something? The Universe? What began the universe? How long can we go on for!?

Yes indeed, that is the question -- where did it all come from? Unfortunately I don't have the answer!

But neither do you. Neither of us has a shred of evidence on which to base a belief that "the universe came from X" (X being our respective answers).

So therefore I am comfortable saying "I don't know!" I wish more people were comfortable doing this. Why the need to project divine properties onto something simply because you don't understand it? If you look back over all previous civilisations, you can see the same trend of people worshipping the sun, the moon, lightning, thunder, etc. etc., because they didn't understand it.

If I still worshipped Helios, god of the sun, you would say I'm silly, and then explain to me what the sun is. And yet you're playing into the same trend of believing in something and creating a deity because of the fact that you don't have all the answers.

And while it's one thing to be a deist and just believe that a deity created everything and then f*cked off, leaving us to our own devices (something I still think is a cop-out), it's QUITE ANOTHER to buy into a particular organised religion (I don't know that you personally do InFront), and follow whatever doctrine they spew out (which changes all the time), and believe whatever holy book they use (which was written by humans, not god), and all the supernatural virgin birth, raised from the dead, afterlife crap that lies within it.

I just don't get that.

InFront wrote:

It all boils down to belief and personal faith. I love and respect Mathematics, bbut ultimately I have more faith in religion. Others may be atheists and respect Religion, but have more faith in Mathematics. Being the inverse of one another in that respect, doesn not make us absolutely dissimilar. No matter what we believe or disbelieve, we are all people of simple faith.

I'm not sure that I agree! Religion is a simple faith, because everything is laid out, we exist because whatever, we were created by whomever, we'll be here til whenever. Life becomes alot simpler when your relative dies and you're able to say "god works in mysterious ways, we'll meet them again in the afterlife". God works in mysterious ways? What kind of crap non-answer is that?!

But life becomes more difficult when you don't believe that we were created by a magical god, because you have to wonder about where DID we come from. It's alot more tricky to carry out a scientific experiment to explain gravity than it is to say "that's just god carrying the apple to the grass". And it's quite gruelling to believe when your loved-one dies that you're not going to see them again, they're gone out of your life, and you'll never know the answer to a question you wanted to ask them.

Sure religion and science both have simple and complex aspects to them, but at the end of the day one thinks they have all the answers, the other is still asking questions.

InFront · 06-01-2007 08:28PM

What does 'right in his opinion' mean?

I really can't make out what you're trying to say or whether that phrase says anything at all.

If its that he correctly thinks what his opinion is? If so, so what? It could still be wrong which is where the discussion should lie. Just because something is currently unprovable is no reason not to discuss the matter, especially one with such an influence on society.

I really can't make out what you're trying to say or whether that phrase says anything at all.

I'm simply pointing out that everything is a question of faith, something which you yourself have touched on.

The statement "in your opinion, you are correct" is simple. It does not qualify one's opinion, merely one's right to own it. I have no proof that Allah exists that I can show you, which will make my opinion ultimately valid. Similarly, you have no proof that will ultimately convince me whether or not 4,783,742,391,204 multiplied by pi is definitely a certain value, never mind whether or not that product is a prime number. There is uncertainty in everything, but from uncertainty we derive opinion.

InFront · 06-01-2007 08:30PM

andrew wrote:

I think i just means that its all a matter of opinion, and since neither belief can be disproven then all you can have is an opinion which you both believe to be right.

he says it more clearly

monkeyfudge · 06-01-2007 08:34PM

andrew wrote:

I think i just means that its all a matter of opinion, and since neither belief can be disproven then all you can have is an opinion which you both believe to be right.

I've never understood why it should be a matter of disproving.

The people who are making far fetched claims of deities existing are the ones should be providing proof of these claims if they expect to be taken seriously.

I could just as easily tell everyone that the Earths core is made of cheese and expect everyone to respect my belief because they can't disprove my wild claims.

Sangre · 06-01-2007 08:41PM

Well of course you have the right to any opinion you want. However some opinions are more educated than others (like belief in gravity), this is where the debate between atheists and theists come into play. Who has the more educated opinion is where the direction of this thread is going.

I also have the right to say your opinion is wrong based on observable facts and reason, this right becomes especially pertinent when your (the royal your) opinions affects soceity and others as a whole.

18AD · 06-01-2007 08:53PM

UnHolyMoe wrote:

I believe the universe is supported on the back of a turtle and it's turtles all the way down.

Hail Eris! :rolleyes:

At this point in time I'm believing in an observer created/influenced universe...
...and all that stuff.

InFront · 06-01-2007 09:08PM

DaveMcG wrote:

There's no reason to believe in god other than the fact that we don't know where the universe came from. I don't really see how you can create a "possibility" of god existing based on no evidence and no factors other than the fact that we are here.

And other the fact that we are here, and knowing that we have no evidence that aliens are here, why should there be alien life?
Why should there be a phenomenon like Probability Theory and not the phenomenon of Allah? What qualifies a theory, how many times do you have to prove it before error becomes impossible? Remember, that when a mathmatician looks at a zebra grazing on a plain, he should remember "we only know that this zebra is striped on one side". No matter how many zebras are on that plain, millions maybe, you have to look at every one on both sides to be sure (as sure as you can be) that they are striped on both sides.

Why should there be invisible things like theories at all, invisible things that seem to be confirmed by manifest reality? Probability itself, and Allah, are both mere theories. The scientific miracles of the Qur'an are theories that seem to be confirmed byh manifest reality, so is the case with probablility.

Whereas when you're talking about life on other planets, you have to take into account the fact that life as we know requires certain environmental factors to begin. Evidentally earth possesses these factors as life began here and evolved into what you see today.

Right, so there are two facets to this probability:
Firstly, I am not claiming that God exists within the universe, personally I believe that he exists in a different dimension: that he is not answerable to the speed of light, because he is the one controlling it, here is where you have to go further into probability theory.

Probability 1: Limited - God controls the universe
Probability 2: Unlimited - The universe (pioneered by the light beam) controls our perception of Allah.

Which is more likely? The constrained or the unconstrained? Probability says the unconstrained, because of this: with the unconstrained you need one requirement as proof the force. With the limited force, you must prove the force and also what limits it. This is why it is harder to prove Allah than it is to prove the existence of aliens within the universe, because a force such as a universe controlled by Allah is a constrained thing there are a greater requirement of things to prove, so statistically, aliens are more likely.
But wait - this theory isn't perfect. Before we understood the speed of light (inasmuch as we understand it today) we presumed (or they) that light travelled at infinite speed (the unlimited). But that is wrong, and we must accept the possibility that it could be wrong again! This whole probability thing is all very up in the air, it's almost as bad as religion:)

Now the second probability: Why is it more probable that the universe created itself than (a) something else created the universe or (b) the universe was created by a universe that was craeted by something else ad infinitum? Well it isn't, because you are really saying the same thing over and over again backwards into infinity. In this case, the probabilities are equal, because there were, according to theoretical physics, no obedience of the laws of physics, no time laws, and no space laws.

Yes indeed, that is the question -- where did it all come from? Unfortunately I don't have the answer! But neither do you. Neither of us has a shred of evidence on which to base a belief that "the universe came from X" (X being our respective answers).

Exactly!

So therefore I am comfortable saying "I don't know!" I wish more people were comfortable doing this. Why the need to project divine properties onto something simply because you don't understand it?

Saying I dont know is fine. I possibly don't know either, I am sure, except my faith clouds my judgement to a point where I dont know that I don't know, and I actually think that i do know! But do I really?

Similarly, your faith in science/ physics (unproven things, really) cloud your own judgement to a point where you say....

I wish more people were comfortable doing this. Why the need to project divine properties onto something

Well here you are disregarding something that is known to have probability (or possibility) attached to it. You are assuming an opinion, which is all I am doing as well.

If you look back over all previous civilisations, you can see the same trend of people worshipping the sun, the moon, lightning, thunder, etc. etc., because they didn't understand it.

And assuming that light travelled at unlimited (infinte) speed because they didn't understand it. And that's not the only thing that science got wrong...

If I still worshipped Helios, god of the sun, you would say I'm silly

And if I suggested that life exists in ether, you would say I were silly, but it was even in the 20th century "common knowledge". It survives now only in our vocabulary, the stuff of some forgotten academics.

Sure religion and science both have simple and complex aspects to them, but at the end of the day one thinks they have all the answers, the other is still asking questions.

Which is which?

InFront · 06-01-2007 09:19PM

Sangre wrote:

Well of course you have the right to any opinion you want. However some opinions are more educated than others (like belief in gravity), this is where the debate between atheists and theists come into play. Who has the more educated opinion is where the direction of this thread is going.

No, it is not about who has the more educated opinion, I think you mean who has the more "probable" opinion. Remember that according to probability in its simplest form, it is more probable that there would be nothing than the probability that there would be something.
I have already said why I believe (even as a Muslim) that science tells us that no God is more probable than a God.
But that does not rule out the probability of a God, the probability is inalienable. And we must remember the simple reason why no God is more probable: simply because it is harder to prove two things than it is to prove one thing. Nothing more.

I also have the right to say your opinion is wrong based on observable facts and reason, this right becomes especially pertinent when your (the royal your) opinions affects soceity and others as a whole.

But that is still only going to be your unproven opinion.

And the degree to which opinion affects society does not make it more correct or less correct.

DublinWriter · 06-01-2007 09:28PM

I've been a Mahanyana Buddhist for the past 15 years, so I don't believe in a supreme God as such.

As a Buddhist I respect other peoples' faiths as long as they don't impinge on other people's intellectual or physical liberties.

A big attraction for me with Buddhism was it's intrinsic common-sense values, most of which were taken from Hinduism. Whereas I couldn't believe in Adam and Eve and Noah and the Arc, I could believe in concepts such as Karma and Maya (the illusion of the physical world).

Time Magazine · 06-01-2007 09:38PM

the Shades wrote:

Religion is a psychological security blanket for those who have trouble dealing with their own mortality.

Whether this is true or not bears absolutely zero relevance as to whether God exists or not. God would exist if nobody used Him as a psychological security blanket; or He does not exist at all.

Basically what you're saying is "I don't believe in God because of other people's opinions." Fair play.

Oh and it's also a crock of sh*t. Do you really think people like CS Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer only believed in God because they had "trouble dealing with their own mortality"?

God does not exist because, from my experience of the Emo Community, many people refuse to believe in God to justify their own morality.

Sangre · 06-01-2007 10:16PM

InFront wrote:

No, it is not about who has the more educated opinion, I think you mean who has the more "probable" opinion.

Yes, I obviously wasn't trying to imply religious people weren't educated. But how do we know something is more 'probable'? Well, by educating ourselves on what lends to the probability that something does or does not exist.

And the degree to which opinion affects society does not make it more correct or less correct.

Again yes. It does however affect how much that opinion should be tolerated, debated or acknowledged in the public forum.

You seem to want to end this debate on the grounds that no one can prove their position. Spoilt sport.

Dave! · 06-01-2007 10:32PM

InFront wrote:

And other the fact that we are here, and knowing that we have no evidence that aliens are here, why should there be alien life?
Why should there be a phenomenon like Probability Theory and not the phenomenon of Allah? What qualifies a theory, how many times do you have to prove it before error becomes impossible? Remember, that when a mathmatician looks at a zebra grazing on a plain, he should remember "we only know that this zebra is striped on one side". No matter how many zebras are on that plain, millions maybe, you have to look at every one on both sides to be sure (as sure as you can be) that they are striped on both sides.

There could be alien life because:

(a) life as we know it requires specific conditions to begin
(b) there is life on earth
(c) there is no reason to believe that earth is 'magic'
(d) there are billions of other planets in the universe

So we can't prove that there is alien life until we find it (which I don't think is too far away), but it's reasonable to keep exploring the possibility.

As to your zebra thing... We can only go by what we can observe. Sure, science might be wrong, sure, there might be invisible zebras in the sky, sure, everything we see might be an illusion, sure, we might be a little miniature pet universe that belongs to the child of a giant lizard who controls everything... But we'll never know. We can only go by what we can observe and surmise, and that is that of the billions and trillions of things that have slid off of tables on earth, they've all fallen to the ground.

There is of course still the possibility that someone will knock a cup off their table, and rather than fall to the floor as we might expect gravity to facilitate, it might float up to the roof. But do you believe that that will happen ever?

InFront wrote:

Why should there be invisible things like theories at all, invisible things that seem to be confirmed by manifest reality? Probability itself, and Allah, are both mere theories. The scientific miracles of the Qur'an are theories that seem to be confirmed byh manifest reality, so is the case with probablility.

There is 'invisible things like theories' because humans are capable of observing their surroundings and based on evidence and repeated occurances, they are able to come to logical results!

I don't see how you can link belief in gravity with belief in god, since once is based on repeated observation and the other is based on faith!

InFront wrote:

Right, so there are two facets to this probability:
Firstly, I am not claiming that God exists within the universe, personally I believe that he exists in a different dimension: that he is not answerable to the speed of light, because he is the one controlling it, here is where you have to go further into probability theory.

etc.

I'm not really following this (and the related) part of your post, but from what I gather you're continuing down the Matrix-esque route of "how do you know this is all real?", and that science might be wrong and that allah might control everything, so there's not point in basing your belief on observation. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

InFront wrote:

Saying I dont know is fine. I possibly don't know either, I am sure, except my faith clouds my judgement to a point where I dont know that I don't know, and I actually think that i do know! But do I really?

Similarly, your faith in science/ physics (unproven things, really) cloud your own judgement to a point where you say....

Well here you are disregarding something that is known to have probability (or possibility) attached to it. You are assuming an opinion, which is all I am doing as well.

I don't have faith in the claims of the scientific community, I have faith in evidence and experimentation. I'd also like you to clarify how science/physics is "unproven, really"!!!

I disregard the possibility of a divine creator because of lack of evidence!!! I don't think that it's an unreasonable stance to take! If there was no evidence behind Newton's claims that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then I wouldn't get into a plane, but the fact is that there is.

InFront wrote:

And assuming that light travelled at unlimited (infinte) speed because they didn't understand it. And that's not the only thing that science got wrong...

And if I suggested that life exists in ether, you would say I were silly, but it was even in the 20th century "common knowledge". It survives now only in our vocabulary, the stuff of some forgotten academics.

That's probably something to do with science evolving and correcting itself over time..... We've come an awful long way in a really short amount of time.

You don't believe me? You'd best not hop in a plane, cos gravity might be wrong! You'd best not take prescribed medicine, cos chemistry might be bogus! You'd best not use your phone, cos the electronics might be off!

InFront wrote:

Which is which?

I'll let you guess.

Based on your posts your position seems to be based on the premise that we don't know anything, this could all be an illusion, we can't trust our senses, etc. Which is fair enough, there's no way for me to disprove that so I guess in that respect I will have to have an element of faith (fa-faith, fa-faith!) in everything that I do. I'll have to have faith that when I get into a plane, gravity won't have been tinkered with, and we won't plummet straight to the ground. But at the end of the day all we can go by is what we can observe.

So whenever you read a scientific theory, you should mentally pin onto the front of it, the following:

"Assuming we are not in the Matrix........."

Sangre · 06-01-2007 10:49PM

InFront wrote:

And if I suggested that life exists in ether, you would say I were silly, but it was even in the 20th century "common knowledge". It survives now only in our vocabulary, the stuff of some forgotten academics.

So science has been wrong before so it could be wrong now so why bother? What an admirable position. Why bother having an opinion on something at all then, you might be wrong.

The reason we have moved on from notions of ether is because we used previous scientific evidence even though there was the chance it was wrong.

Now the second probability: Why is it more probable that the universe created itself than (a) something else created the universe or (b) the universe was created by a universe that was craeted by something else ad infinitum? Well it isn't, because you are really saying the same thing over and over again backwards into infinity. In this case, the probabilities are equal, because there were, according to theoretical physics, no obedience of the laws of physics, no time laws, and no space laws.

By the way, the probabilities of a creator vs non-creator aren't equal. Its either 100% or 0%. 50% implies they are both equally valid when clearly that is wrong, only one answer can be right to the exclusion of the other. You can't argue probabilities because we don't know the probabilities.

Plug · 06-01-2007 11:19PM

Characters:
Mary. (slut)
Joseph. (simple)
Jesus. (Brain washed)
God. (dosen't exist)

Storey line IMO.
Mary had sex with another man and jesus was born she then told joseph it was God. Simple as he was he belived her. Growing up jesus listened to the parents and turned mad himself, He then found fellow mad men AKA 12 apostles.
So there you go, one of, if not the biggest religion in the world started by mary.

Plug:)

PS: I also thinks it unfair when you start off in school they tell you all about religion and brain wash you, not fair, I think you should choose your own religion.

Plug · 06-01-2007 11:24PM

CerebralCortex wrote:

I'm not a believer in Christian doctrine but how does the big bang prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some didn't create it(the big bang). You sound like a 14 year old how decided it was cool to be atheist.

Who made the world then, the builders? If it wasen't the big bang it was something else but no angel or god creature;)

Nightwish · 06-01-2007 11:39PM

I dont believe in a higher power. Tbh, I think Richard Dawkins is pretty much on the mark, in his book The God Delusion. I have no issue with other peoples spirituality or beliefs, as long as they dont try inflict them on me. This country has yet to learn the concept of "church - state separation", which is high up on my list of peeves. Religious beliefs should never be allowed to influence law.

porn_star · 06-01-2007 11:58PM

I don't believe in the idea of sitting on big white fluffy clouds and I don't particularly like the idea of an afterlife, cos wouldn't it just get really tiring?! Like if there is a heaven and you were there for eternity wouldn't people get really sick of it and wouldn't it be just like this world? except people would feel like they had to be nice to each other, cos there really wouldn't be any getting away from each other, cos you'd be trapped there...

If you're gonna say, what started the "big bang", because something/someone had to start it, then what started god?! he/she had to start somewhere too, so logic would tell me that it' more scientific that started it.

I like the idea of there being something and there's times when I've really believed there was, but a lot of things would make me think otherwise aswell. I guess it depends where somesomes faith really lies. I don't like the idea of organised religion or going to mass to worship something. If I believe in anything I think it's karma and you should just live your life how you want it but treat people how you want to be treated and what not.

L31mr0d · 07-01-2007 12:01AM

Codito ergo sum! Who is the Cartesian other then? Freuds "superego" or is it a God?

Ah Ontology, as confusing as it is clarfying

Here's a question thats been on my mind. If humans are supposed to live forever, why did God create a Universe where nothing lasts forever, everything, whether living or inanimate, has a life span. The planets will eventually die, the stars will burn out and this universe will eventually spiral out into oblivion, probably to be replaced by another universe. So why did god create such an imperfect universe? Why not make the stars and planets exist forever? If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, why did god put perfect beings on a planet that would eventually be destroyed by its sun, or did the imperfection of the universe spiral out from Adam and Eves bite from the forbidden fruit? and if heaven is so much better than life on earth, why create the earth in the first place?

Dave! · 07-01-2007 12:03AM

Can god create a boulder so heavy that even he can't lift it?

Such questions!

It's also funny to note that 50% on here don't believe in "heaven and that stuff", yet 88% of the country are supposedly Roman Catholic!!!

Might be something to do with who fills out the Censuses(?) -- I'm down as RC.

Tar.Aldarion · 07-01-2007 12:08AM

in life after love?

Plug · 07-01-2007 12:17AM

DaveMcG wrote:

It's also funny to note that 50% on here don't believe in "heaven and that stuff", yet 88% of the country are supposedly Roman Catholic!!!

I was a catholic but changed, I did my communion and comfirmation for the money end of things.

Dave! · 07-01-2007 12:23AM

Plug wrote:

I was a catholic but changed, I did my communion and comfirmation for the money end of things.

A wise financial decision!

BTW your next post is your 2000th -- use it wisely!

Plug · 07-01-2007 12:40AM

DaveMcG wrote:

A wise financial decision!

BTW your next post is your 2000th -- use it wisely!

Used in the models forum!

InFront · 07-01-2007 12:48AM

DaveMcG wrote:

There could be alien life because:

Firstly, I'm not arguing the probability of alien life, nor the greater summed probability of alien life than the sum of probabilities of divinely created life. That is (alebeit mere scientifiic) fact. Aliens are indeed more likely according to mathematics. But mathematics also affords probability to divinely created life. Maths is no athiest.

We can only go by what we can observe and surmise, and that is that of the billions and trillions of things that have slid off of tables on earth, they've all fallen to the ground.
There is of course still the possibility that someone will knock a cup off their table, and rather than fall to the floor as we might expect gravity to facilitate, it might float up to the roof. But do you believe that that will happen ever?

Prior to the big bang, infintely previously, which is the dimension that we say Allah must have decided on the current universe (or the universe itself decided in a previous cycle) this could have been possible.
There were no laws before the big bang, that is modern scientific theory. We presume that there was no gravity and that physics and mathematics meant nothing.
So if it is perfectly reasonable to think that a cup could behave so ridiculously before the big bang happened (and what a cup was doing there, we don't know), why should it be unreasonable to imagine that anything else could behave irrationally? There were no rules, anything could happen. Pigs could fly, cups could float, ireland could beat the all-blacks and Allah could create a universe.
I am not wishing to create a joke of religion by saying this (why would I?), just pointing out the errorous thinking in saying that the universe does not accomodate a divine presence.
How can the absence of law fail to accomodate anything, but order?

There is 'invisible things like theories' because humans are capable of observing their surroundings and based on evidence and repeated occurances, they are able to come to logical results!

Observing our universe, and based on phenomena and repeated phenomena, and what I would consider to be miracles, I would argue that this is how we prove our faith in Allah (as much as one can prove it to another).
You are utterly convinced that you are correct, but so is a Muslim or a Jew or a Catholic or a Chemist.

I don't see how you can link belief in gravity with belief in god, since once is based on repeated observation and the other is based on faith!

Faith is based largely on observation. It is also based on sacred texts that warn us to be careful of what we are told, because only Allah knows best. While I can accept that the day to day theories that we believe in are correct, I also accept that they may be illusory.
Think about it, if you were God, you certainly would not have to obey your own fanciful laws. You would be above the physics, so how do we know that physics is real? We don't.
I'm sure this seems like ridiculous religious babble to some people, but it is confirmed in science. If you read twenty books on Probability theory, you come out of the library, and close the door, and if a porfessor says to you 'what do you know for certain', you must confess that the only real certainty is that nothing is certain. You will come across no "certainty theory" in mathematics.
This is a frustrating, annoying, concept. As humans we seem built to learn and affirm, we prove things. But just as Islam is about surrendering everything we have to Allah, with it we surrender our knowledge - meagre knowledge - of the universe. We must admit our utter ignorance.

I'm not really following this (and the related) part of your post, but from what I gather you're continuing down the Matrix-esque route of "how do you know this is all real?", and that science might be wrong and that allah might control everything, so there's not point in basing your belief on observation. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

No, there is every right to base belief on observation. But it doesn't take a genius to describe the concept of 'differing opinions'.
Ultimately, the question of God, in my opinion, is not a scientific question. We merely know that science does not prove or disprove the theory. All belief in Allah is based on faith, and faith is not provable.

I don't have faith in the claims of the scientific community, I have faith in evidence and experimentation. I'd also like you to clarify how science/physics is "unproven, really"!!!

Take Mathematics: the axioms of Maths; those things we accept because we have faith in them, those unproven simple statements that Mathematics is built on, are totally unproven. If they are wrong, all that we understand about maths and physics is wrong too. We have faith, based on what we observe and what we are assured, that Mathematics is correct. What if 1 were not equal to one, but to some other number, like 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000001x10^-100000000000000000005? Or here is something that makes maths teachers' blood boil: what if 1=0? We simply do cannot prove otherwise. Even the concept of zero: what is zero? It is not possible to get something from nothing. A mathematician can do many things with zero. In nature there is no zero. Even the big bang didn't start with zero.

You say 'oh but we know what 1 is, it isn't really zero...'. Well we don't. The law must be applied with full rigidity: either we are sure, or we are not. Mathematicians are unsure, ergo mathematics is ultimately built on faith.

I disregard the possibility of a divine creator because of lack of evidence!!!

Fine, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But remember I can similarly use that principle of no evidence to dismiss the notion of the truth of mathematical axioms.

I don't think that it's an unreasonable stance to take! If there was no evidence behind Newton's claims that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then I wouldn't get into a plane, but the fact is that there is.

It is interesting that you mention Newton's laws, because this is where the elsuive truth of science becomes so startling. Examine Newton's third law of F2,1 =-F1,2. This is utterly inconsistent with quantum mechanics, like all of his laws!! Newton's laws are not God-given truths, there are errors here that have been covered over by quantum physics and relativity.

Unlike what was previously held as absolute truth, most physicists no longer totally buy into the idea that matter is conserved. By dropping this theory, physics has moived forwards. But really, you can actually argue in favour or against the position, and neither side can ever totally prove themselves, though one will always be claim to be more convincing by parties on that side. And so it is with religion.

Based on your posts your position seems to be based on the premise that we don't know anything, this could all be an illusion, we can't trust our senses, etc. Which is fair enough, there's no way for me to disprove that so I guess in that respect I will have to have an element of faith (fa-faith, fa-faith!) in everything that I do. I'll have to have faith that when I get into a plane, gravity won't have been tinkered with, and we won't plummet straight to the ground. But at the end of the day all we can go by is what we can observe.

Yes but all you are doing is placing your faith in an apparently scientifically unproven theory with uncertainity probability attached.

KTRIC · 07-01-2007 12:52AM

Erm, atari jaguar

Gautama · 07-01-2007 12:52AM

Plug wrote:

Who made the world then, the builders?

Not the builders, the property developers!

Personally, I'm an Agnostic.
The flaws in the arguments of Catholics/Muslims/Jews/etc are the same as those of Athiests. I regard Athiestism with the same contempt as Religion.

InFront · 07-01-2007 12:56AM

Sangre wrote:

So science has been wrong before so it could be wrong now so why bother? What an admirable position. Why bother having an opinion on something at all then, you might be wrong.

Everybody has to have an opinion or nothing would get done. The attitude is not "why bother" with science, it is wariness of science, awareness that science cannot answer everything (things as small as Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle). There is a mystery to the world that science does not envelope or engage with.

The reason we have moved on from notions of ether is because we used previous scientific evidence even though there was the chance it was wrong.

Right. So how do we know that the current evidence is correct? I think it is, but to be honest, the I would have said that about the ether if I lived in 1900 too!

By the way, the probabilities of a creator vs non-creator aren't equal.

This is incorrect, it is very very basic mathematics. If there are no scientific laws before the big bang, no mathematics and no physics, no relativity, no space-time, only a dimesnion of unrule where matter does exist, you cannot say that any potential modern theory carries more weight than another in that scientific anarchy.

There are no scientific reasons to support any theories whatsoever in that independent, unrecognizable universe/ infinite dot. Yet science must have existed, therfore, no theory overrules another in that era. Allah? Quantum mechanics? Who knows?

haunted-room · 07-01-2007 01:31AM

Mirror wrote:

Worst post EVAR.

I don't believe in God/Heaven or any other supernatural beings or occurrances. We are biological instances of evolved bodies of cells blah blah blah...

We exist simply to exist. To reproduce, continue our race.

I don't believe in the Big Bang as such however. I believe that space is infinite, and in the same sense that a monkey and a typewriter with an infinite amount of time will write the entire works of Shakespeare (it will, don't question logic.), this instance of Earth as we know it, had to exist somewhere, sometime.

There are probably other instances like ours, infinte amounts of time and space away from us and therefore irrelevant, but that is a purely academic point and thinking about infinite space makes my brain hurt a bit.

How is that the worst post ever! So I dont know the technicalities of what makes someone athiest....SO WHAT!!!!!

Do you believe......

Comments