TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- 'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles, Spark Heated Debate
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 »

out of curiousity, what do our atheist friends think of Hawking and other prominent Christian scientists?

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie that's perfect dude--I have no argument with you there. As I've mentioned, I've always allowed the probability that a supreme being might exist. It'd be illogical of anyone not to leave any room for this probability, or anything else for that matter, including flying pigs. In short, anything is theoretically possible, nothing can be completely ruled out--all science does is attempt to establish "x" by putting a probabilistic number on "x." That's it. So once again, we agree.

The problem here is that you need a method of assigning probabilities. What is the chance of god existing exactly as the christian religion describes it? What about other religions? Do they all have equal probability? Does Zeus get a slice of the probability too?

Some people would conclude that the probability of any one interpretation of god being correct would be zero, since there are infinitely many. But throwing a dart at a 10x10 grid and landing it at exact coordinates (Pi, Pi) is also an event of probability zero. Probability zero doesn't mean impossible.

Even more interesting, there are ways of defining sigma algebras such that the probabilities of events occurring are all finite and non-zero but sum to 1. So maybe there are possibilities 1, 2, 3, 4, .... You assign probability 1/2 to possibility 1, 1/4 to possibility 2, 1/8 to possibility 3, and so on. Suddenly the probabilities aren't 0 anymore, but still sum to 1. Then the chance of interpretation k being correct is essentially the same as the chance of getting k heads in a row when tossing a coin. This model is consistent with our mathematical notions of probabilities.

A more sensible scheme is to assign probability 1/2^(2^K(x)) to an explanation x where K is the kolmogorov complexity of x -- essentially, the number of bits required to write a program that describes x. This gives greater weight to simpler explanations.

Still, these are all completely arbitrary and we have no idea whether any of them are right. And we can't make predictions with any of these models, so they are useless. In effect, we *might as well* believe that no god exists. But if you don't like pragmatism, you might not want to sway that way. I personally don't think it makes much of a difference.

When I say that I am an atheist, I really just mean that I reject the concept of theism, just as I reject the concept of invisible pink unicorns. I say "I know that god does not exist" with the same certainty as I say "I know that the tooth fairy does not exist".

But these are insignificant differences, which in no way disagree with anything an agnostic would say regarding something that actually matters.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan out of curiousity, what do our atheist friends think of Hawking and other prominent Christian scientists?

Ummm... as far as I know, Hawking is an atheist.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_atheists.

Too lazy to get a better source.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan out of curiousity, what do our atheist friends think of Hawking and other prominent Christian scientists?

LOL

Hawking is not a Christian.

You want a prominent Christian scientist? Dr. Francis Collins. Brilliant scientist, world renowned, made one of the most important discoveries of our time, and a devoted Christian.

What do I think of him? I think he's a brilliant scientist. I've read his book "The Language of God" where he explicitly says that God cannot be found through science and evidence, but faith. I can actually get the exact quote if you like.

In any event, there are lot of smart and educated people out there who are believers. Conversely, there are a lot of idiots out there who are believers and non-believers. I have zero problem with a scientist and his private beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Ummm... as far as I know, Hawking is an atheist. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_atheists. Too lazy to get a better source.

ah feck. i got him and his wife mixed up.

hawking is what, theist I guess?

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan ah feck. i got him and his wife mixed up. hawking is what, theist I guess?

I'm pretty sure he's an atheist.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I'm pretty sure he's an atheist.

i dont read science often, but a brief history of time seems to suggest he believes in some sort of intelligent creator

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan i dont read science often, but a brief history of time seems to suggest he believes in some sort of intelligent creator

He frequently uses god as a metaphor in his explanations. He wrote a paper once called "god created the integers" or something like that. My thoughts were that he didn't believe in any kind of personal god or christian god (ie one that answers prayers, performs miracles, or that sort of thing). He refers to "god" as whatever random mysterious force he needs to refer to, which is useful in describing some thought experiments when you want to avoid mathematical rigour. I get this in some of my classes too. A prof will say "suppose god flips a switch and time flows backwards". It's common in physics, although the hardcore atheists hate it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot He frequently uses god as a metaphor in his explanations. He wrote a paper once called "god created the integers" or something like that. My thoughts were that he didn't believe in any kind of personal god or christian god (ie one that answers prayers, performs miracles, or that sort of thing). He refers to "god" as whatever random mysterious force he needs to refer to, which is useful in describing some thought experiments when you want to avoid mathematical rigour. I get this in some of my classes too. A prof will say "suppose god flips a switch and time flows backwards". It's common in physics, although the hardcore atheists hate it.

so, he's theist

Yohan check your pm.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Science is not faith.

That is exactly the point.

Faith is what one chooses to explain that what science cannot (and there is a great deal that fits into this innocuous category).

Faith is the confidence that there is order, a system, a process for everything (even that beyond current days scientific explanation).

The greatest physicists and scientists of all time agree that although we can explain much and almost everything in the world, there is a common "perfection" that has created all that is and was.

Whatever the "perfection" is labeled, it's the faith in the order/rules (or "science") that makes us where we are today and how things are just now.

One can call it God, one can call it scientific truth or arrangement - but the underlying reasoning/logic remains the same... What we have here today is a confluence of events that may very well be the product of a some sort of greater power, arrangement or influence that we are not yet able to prove or disprove.

Science is NOT faith.

Science seeks to explain everyting, whereas faith attempts to put meaning behind the unexplainable.

Personally, I seek science, but am humble enough to realize that faith plays a big part in realizing the true potential of science.

Faith is a choice. That is the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan so, he's theist

Yeah, whatever. Obviously there exists some "reason" or "past" to the universe... some explanation why it exists and why matter exists and so on. It is not uncommon to colloquially refer to this explanation as "god". I don't condemn this, even. But I don't attribute any humanlike qualities to it. No omniscience or omnipotence or omnibenevolence or ability to think or reason or design things or listen to prayers or send zombie children down to earth to save humanity and so on. It's the personification of it that I condemn.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Personally, I seek science, but am humble enough to realize that faith place a big part.

Well, it depends on what you're looking for. If you want to build models and make predictions that will help you in life, science is all you need. If you really want to understand the universe... well, past a certain point, you can't; faith is all you have. I personally don't think it's all that important or meaningful to ask questions that are unanswerable by science; I'm quite sure I'll go the grave never understanding the origins of the universe, but I'm OK with that.


Still, maybe it is human nature to *want* to know.

The anthropic principle provides a bit of insight. A very interesting theory is the fine-tuned universe, which claims that intelligent life would never arise in a universe if the fundamental physical quantities were tweaked by a small amount. Thus the fact that we are here to question our own existence is very much related to properties of the universe itself.

Slightly off topic...but here's a paper by an Oxford philosopher which makes an argument that we may actually be living in a computer simulation of an advanced civilization.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Perception belongs to the realm of subjectivism. Observational consensus--the scientific method--belongs to the realm of objectivism. so no, everything is not perception.

someone doesn't know the theory of relativity! it's all relative man!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Science allows us to conclude things based on evidence, where concluding things based on faith, by definition, means accepting them as true WITHOUT evidence.

it's not as easy as this actually. if you are an actual scientist it doesn't work like that at all. it's actually quite annoying.

When did this thread get so confusing and heavy?

(omg)

9 pages grown overnight... too much to read... just got the new village idiot part

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie 9 pages grown overnight... too much to read... just got the new village idiot part

To sum it up, it was an argument about nothing where the atheists claimed that supernatural occurrences cannot be tested and thus dont exist therefore religion is a load of crap while religion really is based on a belief.

PS. I think the term "Act of God" should be scrapped from the known vocabulary....its offensive

Most "supernatural" phenomena (ESP, exorcisms, Ouija boards, dowsing, poltergeists, magnetic bracelets, etc.) really are a load of crap because there are rational explanations (observer-expectancy and subject-expectancy effects, confirmation bias, ideomotor response, cold reading, hallucinations, placebo effect, or just outright fakery) that the proponents of said phenomena simply refuse to believe or acknowledge. In other words, these beliefs CAN be tested but the believers simply refuse to subject them to any scientific scrutiny.

Most theists, with the notable exception of the "creation science" crowd, explicitly acknowledge that their beliefs are not scientific and cannot be tested. Thus, there is really no argument.

It's just unfortunate that certain people (Yohan and Elyot, I'm looking at you) have to poison the debate by introducing tangential elements like exorcisms and Friday the 13th that are sorta kinda similar but actually not really.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's just unfortunate that certain people (Yohan and Elyot, I'm looking at you) have to poison the debate by introducing tangential elements like exorcisms and Friday the 13th that are sorta kinda similar but actually not really.

number one rule of tranceaddict. all threads are to be hijacked or go off on a tangent

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Most "supernatural" phenomena (ESP, exorcisms, Ouija boards, dowsing, poltergeists, magnetic bracelets, etc.) really are a load of crap because there are rational explanations (observer-expectancy and subject-expectancy effects, confirmation bias, ideomotor response, cold reading, hallucinations, placebo effect, or just outright fakery) that the proponents of said phenomena simply refuse to believe or acknowledge. In other words, these beliefs CAN be tested but the believers simply refuse to subject them to any scientific scrutiny. Most theists, with the notable exception of the "creation science" crowd, explicitly acknowledge that their beliefs are not scientific and cannot be tested. Thus, there is really no argument. It's just unfortunate that certain people (Yohan and Elyot, I'm looking at you) have to poison the debate by introducing tangential elements like exorcisms and Friday the 13th that are sorta kinda similar but actually not really.

Well, I thought my example of Friday the 13th was extremely relevant. I'm not just trying to trash religion for its attempt to explain supernatural events; I'm also trashing it for causing irrational and damaging behaviour among the general public. I claimed that the damage that would be caused by an irrational and unfounded fear of Friday the 13th would be unacceptable, yet the damage caused by the religious condemnation of practices like homosexuality and birth control are even worse.

I don't see how that is irrelevant at all. It is the primary reason WHY I detest religion. People running around and believing in ghosts and a mystical fairy man in the sky... well, if it was just that, there wouldn't be a problem. But ACTING based on this "faith" and making decisions based upon it (like hating your homosexual neighbours because your magic book says that homosexuality is an abomination, or refusing to use a condom because your pointy-hatted religious leader tells you not to)... well, that is incredibly damaging to society. I don't feel like I should tolerate that just because you think your magic book is "holy".

I'm not so much interested in discussing whether or not one is justified in believing something that they can't explain. The question is about whether taking action based on such a belief is justified.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess it's not as easy as this actually. if you are an actual scientist it doesn't work like that at all. it's actually quite annoying.

Bahahahah. I never said that experimental science was easy! That's why I chose mathematics.

so all those atheists who say they are all based on science and fact and all.... does homosexuality scientifically make sense?


oh wait...touchy subject? lets get into that...please

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee so all those atheists who say they are all based on science and fact and all.... does homosexuality scientifically make sense? oh wait...touchy subject? lets get into that...please

its only touchy when the priest gets close to me...*sheds tear*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.