Proof, evidence, belief, faith

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
For those out there that have expressed their disbelief in God, Allah, or Yahweh (any other "gods" are not worth my time), I would like to propose a certain challenge, with a spin.

First, prove to yourself that anything other than your own thoughts are real. Make sure you use the same "scientific" criteria that you try to demand persons of faith to use when they explain their beliefs to you.

Second, prove to the rest of us that anything other than our own thoughts are real. Again, use the criteria above.

Best of luck.
 
#2
#2
therealUT said:
For those out there that have expressed their disbelief in God, Allah, or Yahweh (any other "gods" are not worth my time), I would like to propose a certain challenge, with a spin.

First, prove to yourself that anything other than your own thoughts are real. Make sure you use the same "scientific" criteria that you try to demand persons of faith to use when they explain their beliefs to you.

Second, prove to the rest of us that anything other than our own thoughts are real. Again, use the criteria above.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...

The scientific method can't provide this kind of proof. That's why everything in science is either an expirementally proved theory or hypothesis. The logic of the scientific method implies that just because expiremental results confirm the hypothesis being tested, the results won't prove the hypothesis (which is why everything's continually being re-evaluated in science).

You're basically posing a philosophical question and expecting that somehow science can provide an answer. As to proving your assertions, I'm not sure anyone can, but if you think everything's in your head, why not be completely corrupt and evil? The implication there is that God doesn't exist.
 
#6
#6
I don't know how to take this, if only because the same poster said disability services should fall on the shoulders of family and church.
 
#11
#11
jdsa said:
You're basically posing a philosophical question and expecting that somehow science can provide an answer. As to proving your assertions, I'm not sure anyone can, but if you think everything's in your head, why not be completely corrupt and evil? The implication there is that God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I am indeed posing a philosophical question. I also am fully aware that science, or any other method, cannot in any way prove to a man that anything exists outside of his own thoughts.

However, the implication is is that every single person walking the face of the Earth has to possess an illogical faith in the existence of everything that person sees, hears, feels, or smells.

Therefore, trying to argue against other people having faith in a Being that they will never be able to logically prove the existence of, is, in fact, hypocritical.
 
#12
#12
jdsa said:
The scientific method can't provide this kind of proof. That's why everything in science is either an expirementally proved theory or hypothesis.

You're basically posing a philosophical question and expecting that somehow science can provide an answer.
Click to expand...

Ah yes but the scientific method is itself a philosophy.
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
For those out there that have expressed their disbelief in God, Allah, or Yahweh (any other "gods" are not worth my time), I would like to propose a certain challenge, with a spin.

First, prove to yourself that anything other than your own thoughts are real. Make sure you use the same "scientific" criteria that you try to demand persons of faith to use when they explain their beliefs to you.

Second, prove to the rest of us that anything other than our own thoughts are real. Again, use the criteria above.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...

With any truth claim, it is not about the "belief" itself, it is about the reasons one has for those beliefs.

Beliefs are beliefs, no matter how logical...or silly...they may appear. Reasons are where the meat is. A more fair way to ask the question is what reasons to you have to believe/disbelieve certain ideas?

Evidence and reasons should be primary. I can't disprove a belief a God, Allah, or Yahweh, anymore than I can disprove the "other Gods" that are not worth your time. And likewise, you can't disprove the belief that they don't exist. What we can do, however, is explore reasons, assumptions, and evidence for each case.
 
#16
#16
BigPapaVol said:
and the notion that it continuously reassesses itself is ridiculous. It's not like the notional items and assumptions change.
Click to expand...


What scientist has said this?

Theories themselves are continuously reassessed as new evidence and insights come to light.
 
#17
#17
JDSA said it's continually being reassessed and I said that's ridiculous. I think the assumptions that drive many of the theories, postulates and hypotheses out there become almost concrete, until disproven.

Your point would be that science reassesses itself when proven wrong. That's the case for everyone and everything.
 
#18
#18
I think the assumptions that drive many of the theories, postulates and hypotheses out there become almost concrete, until disproven.
Click to expand...

For some theories, I would agree with this, for others, it is pretty soft. Scientific theories exist along a continuum in my opinon...from "probably unlikely" to "almost scientific law".

String theory, for example, is very soft. It is simply an attempt to explain how quantum mechanics work. The math makes sense, and it could explain quite a bit, but evidence for it is lacking. It is very likely another Einstein may come along and blow it out of the water.

Evolutionary theory is another, on the other end of the spectrum. Is it true that the theory could be wrong? Sure, but if it is, we must account for 150 years of scientific data....and mother nature sure has a lot of explaining to do. The specifics of the theory are still debated, and there may even be a fundamental flaw in the theory. But ask yourself what the chances are that evolution of species didn't happen in some form on this earth? It is effectively zero.

Your point would be that science reassesses itself when proven wrong. That's the case for everyone and everything.
Click to expand...

How does this fit within the purview of religion, when it is ultimately a matter of faith? I would say that with science it is a huge liability to be certain and to be wrong. This is why there are so few scientific laws. With religion, it seems to be the other way around. The believer simply knows they are right, by order of faith, and will not change unless it becomes impossible to defend anymore...and even then the pre-held belief is simply modified to fit within the common sense that has been established (enter intelligent design).

Admittedly, I would venture to guess you and others on here believe you could be wrong, and are open to compelling evidence and reasons, and I respect that. But overall this is the exception rather than the rule. I am not going to hold my breath that anything will come along to change your views on spirituality and the efficacy of Christian belief.

The difference for the majority, in my opinion, is when "faith as a virtue" is used as justification for tightly held beliefs, it is difficult to come up with any evidence to the contrary the believer will see credibility in.
 
#19
#19
I'm not arguing against evolution in the least. I'm arguing that the religion of science is in fact not something different than the rest of the religions out there.

The answers between faith and science aren't going to be answered on this board. To presume all believers in God don't have the capacity to reason or can't understand science is just science's weak minded response and is awfully similar to "you gotta have faith."

I guarantee you when someone puts something supportable in front of me, I'll take note. I have on evolution and it's a theory absolutely rife with problems and horrendous assumptions that continue to be made daily.
 
#20
#20
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not arguing against evolution in the least. I'm arguing that the religion of science is in fact not something different than the rest of the religions out there.
Click to expand...

This is what I disagree with you most about. Using reason to try to prove assertions is exactly what differentiates scientific and religious beliefs. You can critique the scientific method, if you like, but it still has its roots in logic, and can be described in terms of its formal logic. Religion doesn't even pretend to go this far. There are no standards of proof for religion. If the bible says, the bush burned, then it did. End of Discussion. While science may not be perfect, its hard to say that having standards and attempting to comprehend and describe reality as it is using those standards, are on a par with blind religious faith.

As to your other post, I meant that scientific results are continually questioned. I suppose the method is too, but less so.

And, of course, there's never going to be a resolution to this discussion. Why else would we be discussing it here? I'm not trying to change minds, just make my case.
 
#21
#21
jdsa said:
This is what I disagree with you most about. Using reason to try to prove assertions is exactly what differentiates scientific and religious beliefs. You can critique the scientific method, if you like, but it still has its roots in logic, and can be described in terms of its formal logic. Religion doesn't even pretend to go this far. There are no standards of proof for religion. If the bible says, the bush burned, then it did. End of Discussion. While science may not be perfect, its hard to say that having standards and attempting to comprehend and describe reality as it is using those standards, are on a par with blind religious faith.

As to your other post, I meant that scientific results are continually questioned. I suppose the method is too, but less so.

And, of course, there's never going to be a resolution to this discussion. Why else would we be discussing it here? I'm not trying to change minds, just make my case.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but don't buy into the scientific method as this amazingly rigorous process that people try to pass off.

The scientific process is rife with bad assumptions and fixed variables. Many of those assumptions become so ingrained that they're just a part of the process today.
 
#22
#22
rjd970 said:
What scientist has said this?

Theories themselves are continuously reassessed as new evidence and insights come to light.
Click to expand...

So then it's considered fact until the science community changes its mind when new "facts" are found.

That's a fancy way of saying we changed our mind.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
I have on evolution and it's a theory absolutely rife with problems and horrendous assumptions that continue to be made daily.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, how much formal education have you had on the theory itself? I'm seriously asking, not trying to start a fight.

I am interested in which specific assumptions you have issue with.

I'm arguing that the religion of science is in fact not something different than the rest of the religions out there.
Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with this as well. If there is one thing I would say science and religion so agree on, it is that nothing matters more than the facts. Either one has good reasons for what they believe, or they don't. It is that simple, and the reasons are what matter.

As a rule, religion supports anykind of evidence that supports its creeds, and derides any that doesn't, or poses a threat. In science it is the evidence that doesn't support the assertion that is of most interest. When evidence is thin for a given religious assertion then the believer invokes faith, otherwise they simply cite the reason (I prayed for my cancer to go away, New Testament confirms Old Testament prophecy..etc). Scientific inquiries don't invoke this kind of "faith", if the evidence against outweighs the evidence for, the theory is thrown out. How many of the faithful are willing to say that the bush didn't burn, the sea didn't part, Jesus probably didn't walk on water, and maybe every animal didn't live within walking distance of Noah's arc? These are items that have a foundation in faith. Not evidence and reason.

IMO, we are in a completely different rational universe with the "faith" science has, and the faith religion requires.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
And there are plenty of books out there from scientists who use proof for their beliefs and not blind faith.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
I understand your point, but don't buy into the scientific method as this amazingly rigorous process that people try to pass off.

The scientific process is rife with bad assumptions and fixed variables. Many of those assumptions become so ingrained that they're just a part of the process today.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, but what is the better alternative?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top