|
Why does...w (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Has it possibly occurred to you that things are a little more complicated than that? The whole point of this debate is to go beyond what we can simply see, and explain it.
Your problem is you try to be too reductive. |
No, not at all. You're trying to turn this discussion into something more than it actually is; that's why my points seem ingenuous.
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Apologies if it came off that way, but I have never believed that atheists are just like theists. I merely stated that they both make an unfounded and as yet unprovable assumption. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's all right, I may have jumped the gun and started talking about what was not being discussed yet. But, in that case, what would be a founded belief (I take it that's what you mean by provable assumption)? |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
A founded believe would be something that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Theists sometimes say that the beauty and intricacy of the world is proof beyond reasonable doubt that a creator exists, but most people would agree that this is not sufficient evidence. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
^^^ Well, I'm afraid there's no such thing as a founded belief then. Is there? You can't even say Einsteinian physics because, after what he did to Newton, it's quite clear that, sooner or later, someone may prove Einstein wrong and come up with an even better theory. |
Lira simply asked me what a 'founded belief' would be, to which I replied 'something which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt'. An example of this would be that the apple I am holding in my hand is red, that I currently weigh around 75kgs, or that if I run too hard, I will become tired. My examples of a founded belief are based on simple things which cannot be disproved.
In the same vein, to be convinced of the existence of a divine being I would need to see the being in front of me and have a conversation with it, while convinced that I was not under the influence of drugs or advanced technology. For some reason you dragged phyics and the laws of gravity into this, which really has nothing to do with seeing something in front of you and believing it. Perhaps physics would be relevant in the search for a divine being, but as far as being convinced of the existence of god, for me, the evidence would be rather mundane and not of a scientific nature. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Lira simply asked me what a 'founded belief' would be, to which I replied 'something which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt'. An example of this would be that the apple I am holding in my hand is red, that I currently weigh around 75kgs, or that if I run too hard, I will become tired. My examples of a founded belief are based on simple things which cannot be disproved.
In the same vein, to be convinced of the existence of a divine being I would need to see the being in front of me and have a conversation with it, while convinced that I was not under the influence of drugs or advanced technology. For some reason you dragged phyics and the laws of gravity into this, which really has nothing to do with seeing something in front of you and believing it. Perhaps physics would be relevant in the search for a divine being, but as far as being convinced of the existence of god, for me, the evidence would be rather mundane and not of a scientific nature. |
You aren't considering the wider implications of your own logic. There are a great many things in the universe that science takes to exist, and that are the basis of much of the technology you use on a day-to-day basis, that do not qualify as "founded beliefs".
Go back in your own posts and you said:
| quote: | | A founded believe would be something that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
And yet by the criteria you're laying down, things like dark matter, subatomic particles and space time must be "unfounded" beliefs because they cannot be unequivocally proved by sensory input. That is clearly ludicrous They are not "simple things that cannot be disproved" and yet neither are they equatable to religious belief. They exist in a middle ground you don't seem to want to recognise.
This is a complex issue and yet you're trying to reduce it to simple terms. You tried simplify the definition of "atheist" to the point PKC corrected you, you're trying to simplify degrees of epistomological belief, and you even tried to get Moral Hazard to simplify his prose. Right now you're trying to simplify the implications of your own argument by telling me I'm "turning this discussion into more than it is", when I'd argue you're making it less than it is by not considering the wider application of your logic. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And yet by the criteria you're laying down, things like dark matter, subatomic particles and space time must be "unfounded" beliefs because they cannot be unequivocally proved by sensory input. |
Correct. Atomic theory is generally accepted as true, however I have always considered it something that we are yet to prove conclusively. Until someone can actually produce a picture of an atom, then I remain open to the possibility that things work differently at a molecular level than we currently think. In contrast to the simple things I stated, this theory could still potentially be disproved. No one can ever disprove the colour of an apple in my hand.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
That is clearly ludicrous They are not "simple things that cannot be disproved" and yet neither are they equatable to religious belief. They exist in a middle ground you don't seem to want to recognise. |
I'm not recognising the middle ground because it's not relevant - as I said, things like atomic theory are not 'founded beliefs' to me. They are simply the best explanation we have for the world at the moment, and are highly likely to change in coming years.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
This is a complex issue and yet you're trying to reduce it to simple terms. |
No, it's very simple. We're no longer discussing atheism vs agnosticism or any other form of belief, we are discussing just how provable the existence of a god is, and the nature of what is provable and what is not. It's incredibly simple: I can either see a god and it therefore exists, or I cannot, and it doesn't exist.
Perhaps you're thinking of more complex forms of evidence, such as molecular remains of a divine being. However, as a divine being is likely to be metaphysical, then conventional scientific forms of evidence are never going to be useful in proving this being's existence. Thus, the only method we are left with is observation or personal experience, hence why I have reduced this debate to such simple things as looking at the colour of an apple.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You tried simplify the definition of "atheist" to the point PKC corrected you |
No, I gave a simplistic definition of atheism to prove a point to couch-potato. I am fully aware that there are different forms of atheism; hence why I didn't correct pkc's borrowed definition.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You even tried to get Moral Hazard to simplify his prose. |
Don't be ridiculous. Asking someone to write more coherently has nothing to do with the simplification of a discussion, and you know that. I'm sure his overuse of the ellipsis annoyed you too; at least to some minute degree. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
I'm willing to accept that I'm being simplistic and reductive on forms of evidence, because I simply cannot think of any way we would ever be able to prove the existence of a divine being except actually seeing it. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else can think of another reasonable way.
Also,
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You aren't considering the wider implications of your own logic. |
Can you please elaborate on that? What are the wider implications of my logic? |
|
|
| Spam |
Did anyone else actually WATCH the Dawkins vs Lennox debate?
Dawkins almost had me until he went into that drivel about the multiverse.
How can someone who claims to believe in nothing but that which can be demonstrated with strong evidence believe in such a crock of ? |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Did anyone else actually WATCH the Dawkins vs Lennox debate?
Dawkins almost had me until he went into that drivel about the multiverse.
How can someone who claims to believe in nothing but that which can be demonstrated with strong evidence believe in such a crock of ? |
Didn't watch the whole thing, I got too annoyed at the biased format. Nothing unscientific about the hypothesis of a multiverse.. any hypotheses in quantum mechanics including the Copenhagen interpretation are likely to sound wacky and lack any significant demonstrable proof until this area of science and technology advances somewhat. Some people thought Relativity was a crock of originally (much of the evidence we have today wasn't around when Einstein first published his paper on General Relativity).
The point is that numerous hypotheses arise based on what observable evidence exists. and the weaker ones are knocked out as more evidence comes to light. No one "BELIEVES" anything. They can accept something as a valid possibility that becomes more valid with mounting evidence. THis process is what distinguishes science from faith - which makes a postulation and expects you to believe it as indisputable fact regardless of lack of evidence or indeed the existance of evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
| XoxidE |
 |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Correct. Atomic theory is generally accepted as true, however I have always considered it something that we are yet to prove conclusively. Until someone can actually produce a picture of an atom, then I remain open to the possibility that things work differently at a molecular level than we currently think. In contrast to the simple things I stated, this theory could still potentially be disproved. No one can ever disprove the colour of an apple in my hand. |
So physics is equatable to religious belief, because it cannot be proved by just looking at things Is that really what you think? Subatomic theory, the basis of so much technology, is "unfounded"? These are your terms. Until something can be categorically proven, it all gets thrown into the "Unfounded belief" bracket and treated the same?
| quote: | | No, I gave a simplistic definition of atheism to prove a point to couch-potato. I am fully aware that there are different forms of atheism; hence why I didn't correct pkc's borrowed definition. |
You just said no and then agreed with me. I'm sure you're aware of how complex "atheism" is, but you still simplified it for the purposes of debate.
Here's one to make you think. Shine five different kinds of light on an apple and watch it appear in five different shades of red. Shine ultraviolet light on it, or blue light or red light, and watch it change colour. Which light shows the apple in its "true" colour? Did you know there's an animal called a Mantis Shrimp that has more developed eyes than ours, that can see parts of the spectrum we cannot? Ask a Mantis Shrimp what colour the apple is through those eyes in those different lights.
"Red" is just a word. It is not reality. Try and show me the exact, genuine colour of an apple and you'll quickly realise it comes down to just who is looking and where they are.
Now, just how sure are you of the black and white Founded/Unfounded divide? |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Didn't watch the whole thing, I got too annoyed at the biased format. Nothing unscientific about the hypothesis of a multiverse.. any hypotheses in quantum mechanics including the Copenhagen interpretation are likely to sound wacky and lack any significant demonstrable proof until this area of science and technology advances somewhat. Some people thought Relativity was a crock of originally (much of the evidence we have today wasn't around when Einstein first published his paper on General Relativity).
The point is that numerous hypotheses arise based on what observable evidence exists. and the weaker ones are knocked out as more evidence comes to light. No one "BELIEVES" anything. They can accept something as a valid possibility that becomes more valid with mounting evidence. THis process is what distinguishes science from faith - which makes a postulation and expects you to believe it as indisputable fact regardless of lack of evidence or indeed the existance of evidence to the contrary. |
Please, DO inform.
What observable evidence exists to indicate that there are billions of Universes that ours is just one of?
I was also disappointed in the biased format. But then why the did Dawkins agree to it in the first place? Do you think they just sprung it on him while he was sitting there on stage? Of course not. Nevermind the fact that the few times he WAS able to have a real back-and-forth discussion with Lennox, he ended each conversation stuttering and quickly requesting to move onto the next topic.
I don't know that Lennox provides a strong argument for the Christian faith, but he certainly provides an argument for the existence of a creator. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| I'm an Agnostic Catholic. I got you all beat :p |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by XoxidE
|
...the ....why are their faces switched/moulded together? |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| someone sticky this post please. Im having trouble reading it all but holy is my brain happier than a fly in . |
|
|
|
|
