wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Atheism or Theism?? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Android Security Essentials Live Lessons this week in the Android forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Atheism or Theism??" Watch "Atheism or Theism??" New topic
Author

Atheism or Theism??

Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
Hi ranchers, let us discuss something really meaning less. Do you believe in God? Give your reasons for it. Gods, irrespective of religion, serve a common purpose, to prevail truth and goody goody things.

Your say??
Shashi Kant
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 08, 2006
Posts: 117
Hi Sidd

here is one story. quite a long but go through it. really nice.

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
Student does not answer.

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
Student has no answer.

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.


If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?
Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
I have read this story several times. It is fine, when we think philosophically, and when we are in mood of something nerve tingling. But seing practically, one can find many loop holes in that story. None of the student's arguements were logical enough to believe in. I don't say I completely deny the existence of God, but there are no proofs of His existence either. I believe in God just because it gives me moral strength. And so is the case with almost all others.
Its becoz we need assurance, assurance of someone powerful than us protecting us. But its only an illusion.
Shashi Kant
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 08, 2006
Posts: 117
Student: That is it sir... The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.


I am also agree with you Sidd.
I don't believe in physical existance of god. All we have is Faith only.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Atheism or Theism?? Neither.

More like "liveandletliveandstoptryingtoputpeopleintoboxesbecauseeveryoneisdifferent-ism"


[ flickr ]
Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
Very clearly explained.

But you can't be neutral in this matter. Like you either are living, or you are dead. Don't say that you could be in coma. Some things have two options, yes or no. There is no 'others' or 'none of the above'.

Sid.
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
On the off chance that this thread lives more then five minutes (which I doubt)... why is it limited to atheism/theism? How about agnosticism? Why make a definitive statement at all?

Both theism and atheism appear to me to be making a statement which cannot 100% be backed up with either evidence or reason, and so declaring them to be entirely correct seem to be something of a fallacy. To me a better way of approaching the issue would be to express it as a probability - as in "I cannot prove X, but I think it highly likely" or "I do not think there is enough evidence or reason to consider it more likely then not".


There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
There definitely seems to be some logic in what Dave is saying. But then, being at the middle of the road, you run the risk of being run over.
siva kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 02, 2004
Posts: 120
Why not both...

why you can't be atheist and theist at the same time

both systems works on belief/trust so whats the problem with accepting that both of the them have a equal probability of existence; and both of these systems need not be mutually exclusive.

A believer will go to hell/heaven or even some place called hell-heaven

A non believer will just vanish into the blue sky.

Some idea's from buddha

Buddha says the greatest joy in life is freedom: freedom from all prejudices, freedom from all scriptures, freedom from all concepts and ideologies, freedom from all desires, freedom from all possessiveness and jealousy, freedom from all hatred, anger, rage, lust... in short, freedom from everything, so that you are just a pure consciousness, unbounded, unlimited. That is the greatest joy, and it is possible -- it is within everybody's grasp. You just have to grope for it a little. The groping will be in the dark, but it is not far away. If you try, if you make an effort, you are bound to find it. It is your birthright.
Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
You have a point, but one should have clear ideas about these things. You can't put your legs in two boats at a time.
siva kumar
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 02, 2004
Posts: 120
Hmm... Again we can delve in endless word jugglery...

There are no boats; no water;

What if you are standing on the shore... then...

Thats the point both the ideas are drawn out of thin air; most of us flip-flop between these belief's.

I don't think any belief system represents truth... they represent half-truths if at all.

I think we are living in a system that is vastly bigger in terms of time/space and our time is very short to understand anything about it
There is no way we can know the truth.

All we can do is jot down what we observe; and what our mind infers from those observations even that will be washed away in the ocean of time.

Thats why our friend Soc said
"The only thing I knew is I knew nothing"
[ May 04, 2007: Message edited by: siva kumar ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Sidd Kulk:
You have a point, but one should have clear ideas about these things. You can't put your legs in two boats at a time.


If you think that second sentence justifies your first sentence, there is no point trying to explain my position to you! I have lost count of the number of spiritual books I have read, speeches I have heard that follow the similar logic - trying to make their point look good by adding something thats accepted as a fact - even though there is no real connection between these two.

Here's one for you : You don't have to be either an atheist or a theist. "Its not always just black or white".
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1386
It rains in Indianapolis in the summertime, don't it? There was the late Dr. Seuss, there's Disneyland, Mother Goose and nursery rhimes, right?

So who else would have made those little green apples?

(http://www.spiritofsinatra.com/pages/Lyrics/l/Little_Green_Apples.htm)
Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:


If you think that second sentence justifies your first sentence, there is no point trying to explain my position to you! I have lost count of the number of spiritual books I have read, speeches I have heard that follow the similar logic - trying to make their point look good by adding something thats accepted as a fact - even though there is no real connection between these two.

Here's one for you : You don't have to be either an atheist or a theist. "Its not always just black or white".


Most things lie between the extremes. But in certain things, there are just extremes, like life and death. And there can't be anything between the extremes. By trying to be in middle, one tries to be safe. Safe from what? You know it.
I repeat again, I don't have any problem with any person believing in God. Fear of God often prevents a person from doing many things he is not supposed to. But most of the times it becomes an obsession. We know what problems the world is facing because of religions. I want to let people know that nothing can be above a human being, not even God. I can understand if a war breaks out for land or oil, but fighting for something which we aren't even sure of?? Isn't it insane?? And even if we believe in God, how many of us follow what He has preached?? We pray when we are in trouble.
[ May 04, 2007: Message edited by: Sidd Kulk ]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11172
    
  16

Let me pose the following question:

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

I mean, nobody has ever PROVED his existance, or lack thereof. I don't believe it CAN proved he doesn't exist. But, there is a lot of evidence supporting that case. That makes it highly probable that Santa doesn't actually live at the north pole, that he doesn't fly around the world in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, and that he doesn't go down the chimney to put presents under the tree.

I believe the same thing applies to ALL the gods that have 'existed' over the course of human history. There is a lot of fun stories about what allegedly happened, but why should i put any more faith in a story of a man walking on water than in a story about a man cutting the head off the Medusa?

I don't see any evidence FOR a god, but I do see lots of evidence that would indicate there isn't one. I'm not talking about evil or death, but things like the laws of conservation of energy and things we observe in laboratories.

Give me real evidence of a god-like being, and i'll believe. But i'm going to be skeptical until then.


There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Andris Jekabsons
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 82
Originally posted by Fred Rosenberger:
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
I mean, nobody has ever PROVED his existance, or lack thereof.

What do you mean? It is a fact that Santa Claus exists. He lives in Korvatunturi, Finland. He even flies around the world visiting other countries (though he is probably using Finnair these days.)
Rogerio Kioshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 689
I believe that exists some kind of power which controls everything. I don't know if this power is God (maybe).

But one thing that I really believe is that, if you do good things, good things will return to you. On the same way, if you do bad things, these bad things will also return, maybe not at the same moment, but they will...


SCEA 5 (part 1), SCBCD, SCWCD, SCJP, CLP, CLS
George Harris
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2003
Posts: 84
The way that I see it is nobody can prove that God exists. But the absence of proof is not proof that God does not exist. So being a Theist or an Atheist requires the equal amount of faith and conviction. Nobody knows one way or the other and that is how it is meant to be.

Why must people try to prove that which is unproveable. Believe whatever you want and understand some people will agree and others will disagree and there isn't a thing you can do to change their mind.
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
I suspect that in many cases arguments or debates would not change a person's mind anyway if they are strongly atheist or theist. Already they have taken a position which does not rely on evidence or reason, so an argument (which is based on at the latter at least, and often both) will make no difference.

So what you end up with is a conversation like:

Person A: "I believe in X"
Person B: "Why? What reason or evidence do you have to prove X?"
Person A: "None, but I believe anyway. I just have a 'gut feeling' about it".
Person B: "That's stupid".
Person A: "You silly person for having a closed mind".
Person B: "You silly person for believing in fairy tales".

and so on, into a pointless argument.

It all makes the issue fairly frustrating for both sides. There is no point in Person B using logic, because Person A thinks that X is above proof. There is no point Person A using emotional reasons because Person B thinks emotion is not a good reason to believe in something.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[Dave]: On the off chance that this thread lives more then five minutes (which I doubt)...

Maybe a little more than five minutes. This thread will probably last up until the point where someone started getting upset or offended at what others are saying. So for those who want to discuss it, please make extra effort to neither give offense, nor take it. Thanks, and good luck.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11172
    
  16

Originally posted by George Harris:
The way that I see it is nobody can prove that God exists. But the absence of proof is not proof that God does not exist.

Agree whole heartedly.

But if i said to you that I personally have the ability to change water into wine, that I can fly through the air, and that i can create lumps of gold at will, would you believe me? I mean, you can't prove that i CAN'T do these things, right? Nobody can prove i CAN'T do these things.

But I bet you'd ask for evidence that i CAN before you believe me.

I simply put the same argument towards god, elves, the easter bunny, and tranmutation of lead into gold. There is NO evidence for any of these things. Their existence would completly invalidate much of how we think the universe works. it would certainly change a LOT of concepts and theories we currently believe to be correct.

Show me evidence of the supernatural, of whatever variety you want, and i'll accept it. But myths, folklore, oral histories, and "i just know it's true" is NOT what i consider evidence.
M Easter
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Posts: 133
Fred and I are friends in the meatspace, and we've had this debate in the past.

I respect his views. I don't expect to change his mind, and I don't think that this satisfies his criteria of a logical/rational argument, but, here's something I have considered:

A law of thermodynamics is that things tend toward entropy/disorder. e.g. If you build a house and just leave it alone, it will ultimately become goop.

I fully accept evolutionary theory (Darwin) but it is interesting to try and square it against the above law. Why should species strive to recreate in a world of disorder? Why do certain chemicals begin to assemble into proteins under certain conditions?

The answer may well be: random chance. But personally I find something profound in that. It may well be mysticism with a scientific facade, but...

I believe Wired had an article some time ago that asserted a surprising number of scientists believe in divinity. It's as though the closer one gets to the machinations of the universe, the "awe factor" tends to get higher.

This is why I think it's ridiculous that creationism is pitted against Darwinism. They need not collide at all, and really answer different questions. I think "intelligent design", as I understand it, is a neat idea. It just should be in religion/philosophy classes and not replace science!


M Easter
Software Composer - http://codetojoy.blogspot.com
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[M]: A law of thermodynamics is that things tend toward entropy/disorder.

The second law applies to closed systems, not "things" in general. Which means it's perfectly possible for some parts of a closed system to decrease entropy as long as other parts of the system increase by at least as much. (Insert environmentalist metaphor here.) I don't disagree with other parts of your post, but I see the second law oversimplified too often for my taste.
[ May 04, 2007: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11172
    
  16

A law of thermodynamics...
Ok, so let's use some of the OTHER laws then:

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

So, how can a Divine being create the universe?

And shouldn't God be subject to the third law, and therefore be moving towards entropy? I believe that would mean he is going to die, which makes him not divine.

I thinks it's silly to apply one law because it helps your point, but then ignore the other laws...

and yes, M Easter and I are close friends - he was in my wedding, and I hope to dance at his someday.
[ May 04, 2007: Message edited by: Fred Rosenberger ]
Satish Chilukuri
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 266
I was a theist once. But as my understanding of the world grew, I just couldn't justify everything inside a theist framework. I slowly turned to agnosticism and finally to atheism. For me life has never been simpler since then.


A law of thermodynamics is that things tend toward entropy/disorder. e.g. If you build a house and just leave it alone, it will ultimately become goop.

I fully accept evolutionary theory (Darwin) but it is interesting to try and square it against the above law. Why should species strive to recreate in a world of disorder? Why do certain chemicals begin to assemble into proteins under certain conditions?


Another way to see it is that orderliness comes at the expense of energy. In case of Earth, we get the energy for creation of life from the Sun. In a few billion years, when the Sun's fuel burns out, Earth will not have an energy source and life will decay. On a larger time scale, entropy does seem to increase.
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 8791
I had a good friend who I'd call "strong of faith". When I told him I wasn't, he suggested I take a "seeker" approach, remain open minded, try trusting in something larger than ourselves and see what happens. Reading this it occurred to me that it's been something over 30 years and I haven't found much.

I have no problem talking with people about their religion and faith. It's interesting to learn about different views and many of them offer good guidance in life.

I do have a problem with what's been called the "surplus of certainty" in some crowds. Given the number of people throughout history who have read the same books, studied ernestly, prayed and considered sincerely and then have come to completely different and sometimes horrific conclusions, what are the chances that some "God Said It, I Read It, And That Settles It" leader or group has the one, true interpretation?


A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
M Easter
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 11, 2007
Posts: 133
Originally posted by Stan James:
I do have a problem with what's been called the "surplus of certainty" in some crowds.


Well put. I feel the same way, but also toward zealous atheists (several such authors are on the bestseller lists right now).

Although some people have a certain charm and warmth about their convictions, I generally distrust anyone who knows all the answers, no matter where they come down on The Big Questions.
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by M Easter:
Although some people have a certain charm and warmth about their convictions, I generally distrust anyone who knows all the answers, no matter where they come down on The Big Questions.
What really frustrates me is when people claim to have definitive answers which just can't be wrong.

I think this can be a pretty dangerous habit, and it is quite worrying that many ideologies (not just religious) not only reject the possibility of being wrong, but tell their followers that questioning is wrong. If they're that confident of the premises of their belief, then why not throw it into the arena of questioning and see it come up ahead of the alternatives?
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
It is not a black and white issue. And it really depends on what people truely believe. Somebody who is christian or catholic have a belief in heaven and hell. Somebody who is jewish does not really believe in a heaven or hell. The list goes on for each faith. Some people believe in a savior, others do not. Some people believe in one god, some do not. Who is to day anybody is right. Who is to say anybody is wrong. Every faith and religion believe in what they deem is right or wrong. What is moral.

Being on a programming site and forum, it's safe to assume many people are closer to science and engineering rather than philosophy and religion. Yet in science and engineering, there are really no such things as facts. What is a fact today will not be a fact tomorrow. Computers today were not even dreams 20 years ago. But there are at least ways to prove and show something.

If you believe in a God, then you believe in a God. If you don't, then you don't. Too many people are in the mind frame of "My way is the only way.." Which makes everybody more stupid.
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11172
    
  16

Yet in science and engineering, there are really no such things as facts
There's not? The speed of light in a vacuum isn't a fact? What about the Graviational constant?
Gregg Bolinger
GenRocket Founder
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 15299
    
    6

Originally posted by Fred Rosenberger:
There's not? The speed of light in a vacuum isn't a fact? What about the Graviational constant?


One could argue that nearly every scientific fact is only fact until someone disproves said fact, thereby making said fact a theory all along. Gravity is a theory so there could be a valid argument that the Gravitational Constant is a theoretical value. Sorry, had to pipe in.

As far as the original topic:

Do you believe in God? Yes
Give your reasons for it Because
Gods, irrespective of religion, serve a common purpose, to prevail truth and goody goody things Just plain not true. Not all "gods" are/were considered goody goody. There are plenty of evil "gods" in all forms of literature, mythology, etc.


GenRocket - Experts at Building Test Data
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Originally posted by M Easter:
I think "intelligent design", as I understand it, is a neat idea. It just should be in religion/philosophy classes and not replace science!


I think the term "intelligent design" is a misnomer. It should instead be called "intentional design". The original term implies that the designer has a high IQ and that the whole thing is superior to the alternatives, one of which was to not design anything at all.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[Gregg]: One could argue that nearly every scientific fact is only fact until someone disproves said fact

As opposed to "facts" that continue to be facts long after they've been disproven?
Andrew Monkhouse
author and jackaroo
Marshal Commander

Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Posts: 11404
    
  81

Originally posted by Fred Rosenberger:
There's not? The speed of light in a vacuum isn't a fact? What about the Graviational constant?


Just nit-picking, but there are theories that both of these are not constant: they may have changed over time, particularly close to the big bang. Wikipedia has (of course) lots of information on this, for example Variable speed of light.

Regards, Andrew


The Sun Certified Java Developer Exam with J2SE 5: paper version from Amazon, PDF from Apress, Online reference: Books 24x7 Personal blog
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
That is what I've been talking about. Facts are facts as long as they are true today. The world was once considered flat. Many scientists were killed or condemned cause they didn't agree with the norm. History is filled with "facts" for that current time. But as time changes, some facts change, some popular beliefs change and the story goes on to either a better way or a worse yet more popular way. Facts are facts as long as they are popular.

If a person tied with a rock sink, they weren't a witch. If they float, they are witch and have to die anyway. Those things were popular beliefs. Those things were considered facts.

Who knows what will be considered "fact" 100 years from now.

It was once considered near fact that to save a person who isn't breathing or had a heart attack, you have to perform CPR, emergency workers "shock" them and so on. Now it seems cells are still alive, even though you are near death and not breathing. And it also seems by giving a near dead person oxygen, that kills the cells, and therefore kills you. Fact was somebody who wasn't breathing for a few mintues needed oxygen to save their life, now the new fact seems to be, new Oxygen kills.

Facts change all the time. Like I said, the theory of what black holes are and how they operate seems to change every week. There really is no such thing as a fact. Most things are "theories." The theory of relativity. Theory of gravity. And theories are just that. A theory and not a fact.
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11172
    
  16

There really is no such thing as a fact
is that a fact?
Gregg Bolinger
GenRocket Founder
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 15299
    
    6

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[Gregg]: One could argue that nearly every scientific fact is only fact until someone disproves said fact

As opposed to "facts" that continue to be facts long after they've been disproven?


I did say nearly.... HA!
Rashid Mayes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 11, 2006
Posts: 160
"The world was once considered flat"

The key word is considered. There are definitely facts and we live in a world of interdependencies. We must consider state. The world is flat was never true, regardless of state/condition.

for (int x = 0; (x>>1) == (x/2); x++); is not an infinite loop as ((x>>1) == (x/2)) is true for a certain range.

I am 32 today, but will not be 1 year from now.

You cannot say that these are not facts, but can define the conditions for which they are true. And then we can consider what can and cannot become fact based upon our system.

3 == 4, will not become true

The US mens soccer team winning WC2010, may become true

Religion is often an emotional topic and based upon interpretation. We trust science is everything we do, from starting our cars, watching tv, or taking a flight. If someone is sick, we may pray for them. But we also need science to tell us how sick and what treatment is possible.

The great thing about science is the ability to adjust and refine as more information and tools become available. Truthfully I don't mind theism or atheism. But cannot agree that both arguments are equal. It is not enough to say that something is true because it cannot be disproven. There must be some evidence, not convenience, that suggests that it may be true.


Rashid Mayes
http://www.hostj2me.com/ - http://www.worlddeveloper.org/
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
Everything changes. Science is based on theories. What is true today can be false tomorrow and vice versa. But I agree there are ways to prove and disprove something. But the truth of science is nobody knows the "truth" on how our planet was created or how it came to be.

There are big bang theories, evolutionary theories, the list goes on. Can we prove how earth was created? Can we prove where humans came from? Maybe one day we can, but at this moment in time, nobody knows what is "fact" and what is "fiction"

So,
Can we prove humans evolved from monkeys? Not today.
Can we prove Caveman evolved into what we are today? Not today.
Can we prove how Earth was really created? Not today.
Can we prove how dinosaurs really became extinct? Not today.
Can we prove chickens or alligators evolved from dinosaurs? Not today.
Can we prove there is life on other planets? Not today.
Can we prove Aliens really exist? Not today.
Can we prove atlantis existed/never existed? Not today.
Can we prove God exists/doesn't exist? Not today.
[ May 08, 2007: Message edited by: stephen gates ]
Sidd Kulk
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 152
Originally posted by stephen gates:
Everything changes. Science is based on theories. What is true today can be false tomorrow and vice versa. But I agree there are ways to prove and disprove something. But the truth of science is nobody knows the "truth" on how our planet was created or how it came to be.

There are big bang theories, evolutionary theories, the list goes on. Can we prove how earth was created? Can we prove where humans came from? Maybe one day we can, but at this moment in time, nobody knows what is "fact" and what is "fiction"

So,
Can we prove humans evolved from monkeys? Not today.
Can we prove Caveman evolved into what we are today? Not today.
Can we prove how Earth was really created? Not today.
Can we prove how dinosaurs really became extinct? Not today.
Can we prove chickens or alligators evolved from dinosaurs? Not today.
Can we prove there is life on other planets? Not today.
Can we prove Aliens really exist? Not today.
Can we prove atlantis existed/never existed? Not today.
Can we prove God exists/doesn't exist? Not today.

[ May 08, 2007: Message edited by: stephen gates ]


I don't think that the men of science would deny the existence of God, but what you are stating is absurd. What you have said is that we don't have proofs for these theories. But science has helped to logically, explain the possible theories of evolution and all. And what is true today, might not be true tomorrow, but only in very few cases. Big bang is the nearest theory which logically helps us to understand the formation of universe. Genesis can't be backed by any proof at all.
Why do people want to choke reason, just to prove the existence of a super natural entity, which no one is sure to exist? Why can't God act within the realms of science? Why to despise science just because it puts reason before God.

Sid
 
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime.
 
subject: Atheism or Theism??
 
Similar Threads
Cake or Death?
Pssed Part 2 and 3
help ex-employer or not ?
Vasily Zaitsev
Hi