Forums → WEPR → whats the difference?
| 183 | 43800 |
so,just about everybody has ruled out the possiblity of their being spcific Gods for a element.Such as the greek Gods,what is the difference however between believing in "mythology" and say for instance a Christan religion.Why is it more beliveable?Does anybody have a answer to why it is more believed that their is one God and not many? Why do people who believe in a God not realize that they are believing in the same thing that they also call rubbish?
- 183 Replies
We've directly disproved an "instant creation" 6000 or so years ago as told in the Bible, Torah, and Koran. People still believe it though.
You haven't! At the end of the day, there is still some amount of uncertainty inherent in inductive reasoning. No matter how unreasonable these beliefs are, they are not completely and totally invalidated. I know it hurts deep down, bro, but ignoring it won't make it go away!
Large amounts of people still believe in one.
Religious systems are also less directly tied to political systems now (unless you're Iranian or something)
We know through astronomy, physics, and geology (plus more) that the earth cannot have been around for less than billions of years. Unless you want to take the path that God is deceptive, which opens up a whole other can of worms, there's no getting around it.
This is some interesting alchemy you got cookin' up around here. Turning induction into certainty and a heuristic into a rule? Whoa.
Either way, the majority of Christians believe in a young earth.
I bet you have some totally rad evidence to support this, right? Some crazy surveys or something. That would be utterly tubular, man.
Science keeps on changing, what is right now, can be wrong tomorrow, for example once heroin was thought excellent drug for cough now it isn't.
So, nothing is certain in science.
Premises false, conclusion kinda true. The inherent uncertainty in science as a whole (some of science is deductive in nature, but not a lot of it) comes from the fact that it's mostly/entirely based around inductive reasoning--q implies p rather than p --> q.
Thinking is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts nor are they a means to discover them. Reason is our only way of grasping reality; it is our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss that we refuse to see. Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason's light. In rejecting reason, refusing to think, one embraces death. Quoting Zedd: "...most important rule there is...The Sixth Rule is the hub upon which all rules turn. It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest. Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised. It must be wielded in spite of the ceaseless, howling protests of the wicked.""
I must admit, that IS some pretty sexy rhetoric. (not actually being sarcastic here; it's really well-done)
We have certainty in science. Laws are things that we have proven to be true through arduous experiments in different settings. Some definitions for the more ignorant and stubborn people: Scientific Law by Wikipedia.
>certainty in science
>roven to be true through arduous experiments
lolnope!
You should read that article. Or reread it or whatever. It links to some really really interesting articles about related stuff.
Except one has the balls to admit when it's been proven wrong and improves upon current ideas, while the other calls it the work of yet another unconfirmed thing or heresy if you question it.
Yeah let's use the asinine rhetorical device of ascribing courage/bravery/manliness to a logical construct and then touting it as superior to its allegedly less courageous/brave/manly counterpart! Man we are starting some sick logical fires right now. These rhetorical beats are so, uMMM, sTRICT,,, tHAT THEY ARE CROSSING INTO THE REALM OF HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT,,, uMMM,, tHAT WAS A JOKE,,,
More seriously though, religion adapts too, just in such a way that it can plausibly say that it was actually right all along. They both have the balls to recognize and admit when they're wrong, religion's just got some shrinkage goin' on from all the steroids.
And HahiHa, stop being so reasonable because you didn't say anything I could find a way to expressly disagree with >:U (that was a compliment by the way)
At the end of the day, there is still some amount of uncertainty inherent in inductive reasoning.
This is some interesting alchemy you got cookin' up around here. Turning induction into certainty and a heuristic into a rule? Whoa.
Yes you can have a level of certainty in inductive methods. Just as a forensics officer can be certain that a murder took place a scientist can be certain of their findings. The details might not always be clear, which is where we get these refinements in science from.
No matter how unreasonable these beliefs are, they are not completely and totally invalidated. I know it hurts deep down, bro, but ignoring it won't make it go away!
Based on the evidence at hand we can begin to rule out possibilities as part of the refinement process. For example if we took a one square foot sized box and burred it it under a house where no one can get to it. Then asked what's in the box? We might not be able to be sure exactly what's in that box but we can eliminate possibilities based on what we do know about the box. I could say with certainty that a full grown African elephant isn't in the box or a life size grand piano isn't in the box.
We can in this way eliminate the possibility of the age of the Earth being 6000 years old and many other religious claims.
Yes you can have a level of certainty in inductive methods. Just as a forensics officer can be certain that a murder took place
You did nothing to disprove my point. You gave me an analogy that's too unspecific to prove anything (forensics officers are perfectly capable of using deductive reasoning, as are scientists in some situations, which I said in my post), and then you stated the opposite of what I said. That is not an argument. I would also like to point out that "Yes you can have a level of certainty in inductive methods" is objectively wrong. Inductive reasoning by definition allows for the conclusion to be false but the premises true. That means that induction does not allow for absolute certainty--it is inherently possible for any inductive argument to have true premises but a false conclusion!
Based on the evidence at hand we can begin to rule out possibilities as part of the refinement process. For example if we took a one square foot sized box and burred it it under a house where no one can get to it. Then asked what's in the box? We might not be able to be sure exactly what's in that box but we can eliminate possibilities based on what we do know about the box.
Oh cool, you're describing deduction.
We can in this way eliminate the possibility of the age of the Earth being 6000 years old and many other religious claims.
Right now all you have given me is a very nice non sequitur. Back up that we can totally and utterly disprove religious claims this way. All you've done is describe a deductive process of elimination and then state the opposite of what I said. You gotta show me how I'm wrong, bro. You can't just state the opposite of what I said and have that be an argument.
In the box example, you are using the general properties of two things to eliminate possibility. In scientific processes, we are gathering data and making observations and making mathematical models based on the data and observations. We are still using specific examples of evidence of something to try to prove it--that's induction. Because it's induction, there is no absolute certainty. Experimental and observational data are premises leading to a conclusion here, which is getting q to prove p, which is induction.
I would love to participate in this arguement, but i would say one word, get word slapped back into my chair, and spend the next few days reading mulitple lectures on just how wrong i am. So instead, im directing my awnser to the first post. People "Thought up" the greek gods and their varying mythology to "Explain" events they didnt comprehend. Like why thunder and lightning happened. Like why storms happened. They used mythology to explain "This happens because zeus is angry" and things like this. I cannot claim chirstianity is more valid then greek mythology, because people feel the need to argue all points you might have down. I believe christianity is, because of my faith, and im leaveing it at that.
You did nothing to disprove my point.
Yep I did fail there. And pardon me if this turns out to be another failure I'm trying to get rid of a nasty headache.
Though your argument seems to be stemming from the point of the use of inductive reasoning in science. The certainty that can be garnered is from deductive methods. You did state that some deduction is used but not a lot of it. I would somewhat disagree and say the in science it's a combination of both methods and it's these deductive methods being used to eliminate claims such as the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Right now all you have given me is a very nice non sequitur. Back up that we can totally and utterly disprove religious claims this way.
Like in my box example we know properties of the box that would not allow for certain situation to take place. With the Earth and universe we know properties of the Earth and the universe as a whole that would not allow for the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old to be true. Geological layers, various radiometric dating methods and how long it takes light to reach us all are properties of the world around us ruling out this one claim.
In the box example, you are using the general properties of two things to eliminate possibility. In scientific processes, we are gathering data and making observations and making mathematical models based on the data and observations.
That gathered data can allow us to make deduction such as in the box example.
Because it's induction, there is no absolute certainty.
Where has anyone made the claim of absolute certainty?
you do know science contradicts itself. the second law of thermodynamics say things will go from more to less complex, this is known as entropy. and yet you are trying to say that massive galaxies came out of nowhere and mud became man, that is against your own scientific theories.
you do know science contradicts itself. the second law of thermodynamics say things will go from more to less complex, this is known as entropy. and yet you are trying to say that massive galaxies came out of nowhere and mud became man, that is against your own scientific theories.
Considering that you're already mixing up scientific theories into a giant ball, such as mixing thermodynamics and evolution, as though they are one and the same theory, and follow one and the same rule, I don't think you're actually fit to pass any comment.
To try and bring this back around, sorry for the derailment.
The Bible draw many of it's stories from earlier myths. The creation story is drawn from at least two earlier stories. The Noah's Flood story is drawn from at least two separate flood stories. One such myth influencing this story is the Epic of Gilgamesh. The first of the four Gospels of the New Testament is likely derived from Homer's Odyssey and earlier Biblical stories. Which the other three Gospels copied and embellished the story further over the course of 100 years. Hell in the NT draws greatly from the Greek concept of Tartarus with the devil derived from the concept of Hades and other Pagan gods. Yahweh likely came from a pantheon of Canaaanite gods.
entropy does have to do with evolution and atiesm, because if you don't believe in god, then you have to believe the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, if that were true then all the available energy would already of been used up.
The law about entropy applies to the whole universe, that can include a decrease in entropy in closed systems without contradicting the thermodynamic laws. You'd know that if you'd know your basics in chemistry.
Oh and btw, christianity claims that man came from mud, not science... just saying
if you summarize evolution into one sentence it is this, mud became man, and a bunch of other animals. and you may be smarter than me in chemistry, considering i don't start it till august
if you summarize evolution into one sentence it is this, mud became man
You already failed.
A one sentence summation would be: Simplest possible organism reproduced itself and changed a lot and slowly became other things.
In the end science and ignorance will be the end of man because in truth all religions are more or less the same some say they are all crap but whos to say they are not all good see the thing about religion is that it follows basic laws of karma if you are a good person you will be rewarded justly and if you are bad you are punished this was the basic principle of religion but science has cast it aside by saying there is no afterlife and ignorance has spawned war between people who think that the creed of there own religion no longer applies to them
entropy does have to do with evolution and atiesm, because if you don't believe in god, then you have to believe the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, if that were true then all the available energy would already of been used up.
I take it you're not listening to what I have to say on your profile. I already told you the universe is about 13.75 billion years old. Clearly being an atheist myself I don't have to hold the false beliefs you are trying to straw-man with.
But anyway this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
In the end science and ignorance will be the end of man because in truth all religions are more or less the same some say they are all crap but whos to say they are not all good see the thing about religion is that it follows basic laws of karma if you are a good person you will be rewarded justly and if you are bad you are punished this was the basic principle of religion but science has cast it aside by saying there is no afterlife and ignorance has spawned war between people who think that the creed of there own religion no longer applies to them
Well, whether you live in a rural piously fundamental community or in a city with all sorts of scientifical treats like medicaments and stuff, it doesn't really matter as long as you are happy.
You know, what you are forgetting is that even atheists have an understanding of what is good and what is bad, and their understanding is not inferior to the religious one.
You must be logged in to post a reply!