Lets [Debate] Religion

Status
Not open for further replies.

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
Douwdouw you have me giggling in fits here. Its like Alice in Wonderland in your world. :D
 

sparklehorse

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
704
Even so you would have a harder time not believing in a god of some sort without evolution.
Maybe, I couldn't really say since God, the bible and evolution was always around when I grew up. But I would guess that I would also have a hard time believing in something that I have no evidence for.
How would you go about explaining your existence then?
If I was born into a world that did not know about evolution, the bible or god, I could probably come up with any number of explanations of why I exist. If I give it very little thought, the easiest explanation would probably be that god (or the sun, moon, great giver of life etc.) did it.
The boom in atheism came with evolution.
Have to agree with arf9999. You might as well link atheism with the belief that the earth is round. A lot of changes in the way people think took place around that time.
Now to say that an animal must exist to pollinate a flower is a very weak argument for evolution. If the plant is not pollinated it will not survive and simply wither away. Logic instead of evolution tells us that since it is there there must be a complimentary animal. I could just as well say that since the flower is there God must have created a complimentary animal. It proves absolutely NOTHING.
It's not supposed to prove evolution on it's own. But you said 'I don't see how you can make predictions about evolution and test those predictions and nobody has been able to show me how', so I gave you an example. I won't be surprised if there are better examples. It does show that fact in nature agrees, at least in this case, with the theory.
Ok, so if they find a hippo or rabbit there it would disprove it. Well, "if" an alien came to earth and claimed that he was responsible for dictating the Pentateuch to Moses and showed us how he did it then I guess we can't argue the existence of God. Since we are dealing with hypothetical stuff which may or may not happen and we can not do anything to influence I don't see how it can be claimed falsifiable. The tooth fairy may appear to me but I don't have anyway to influence whether or not that happens so it remains an unfalsifiable theory.
No, falsifiability on it's own is not enough.
From: Wikipedia: falsifiability
The property of being contingent, defeasible, or falsifiable is a logical property. Thus, for example, to show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible. Moreover, the logical property of falsifiability, as a criterion of empirical propositions, has nothing to do with the practical, psychological, or rhetorical task of convincing an individual person that a proposition may have counterexamples. Scientific propositions have nothing to do with those sorts of individual idiosyncrasies.

Finally, falsifiability is a necessary property of empirical statements — it is not a sufficient property. This means that it takes more properties for a proposition to qualify as being empirically meaningful.

The folloeing sounds more correct:
"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."
I don't see him saying it's impossible though. So do you agree with Popper or not?
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
17,506
Information is a major factor. When you're fed just one religion it can seem plausible. When you find out there are numerous religions each with their own gods and beliefs it is more difficult for any one religion to have a hold on you. And without any way to test if one or another religion is more correct you can just as well pick one by drawing straws or just have no religion at all.
 

arf9999

MyBroadband Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
6,791
Arf9999 - on the "more evolved" topic... what is the relevance / importance of being more evolved? I.e. what is your opinion on the matter... are more evolved creatures superior? Are the masaai more or less evolved than... say... you for example... ? Just wondering what your opinion is on this?
I don't have an opinion, as I indicated in my post, I was being facetious. The concept of more or less evolved has no meaning without context, if in fact it has any meaning at all.
 
Last edited:

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
It's not supposed to prove evolution on it's own. But you said 'I don't see how you can make predictions about evolution and test those predictions and nobody has been able to show me how', so I gave you an example. I won't be surprised if there are better examples. It does show that fact in nature agrees, at least in this case, with the theory.
Ok, but that is only one small part of the theory which rests more on logical assumptions than on evolutionary assumptions. This does not seem to test the theory itself i.e. that things evolve. The symbiosis can exist for various reasons all of which can not be tested.
No, falsifiability on it's own is not enough.
From: Wikipedia: falsifiability
The property of being contingent, defeasible, or falsifiable is a logical property. Thus, for example, to show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible. Moreover, the logical property of falsifiability, as a criterion of empirical propositions, has nothing to do with the practical, psychological, or rhetorical task of convincing an individual person that a proposition may have counterexamples. Scientific propositions have nothing to do with those sorts of individual idiosyncrasies.

Finally, falsifiability is a necessary property of empirical statements — it is not a sufficient property. This means that it takes more properties for a proposition to qualify as being empirically meaningful.
Not quite sure what you're referring to when you're saying that it's not enough on its own. If you're saying what I think you're saying, then yes I know there are many other aspects a theory must have to be scientific besides being falsifiable. I find the following interesting:
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show that the proposition was false, even if that observation is not actually made.

For example, the proposition "all swans are white" would be falsified by observing a black swan, which would in turn depend on there being a black swan somewhere in existence. A falsifiable proposition or theory must define in some way what is, or will be, forbidden by that proposition or theory. For example, in this case the existence of a black swan is forbidden by the proposition in question. The possibility in principle of observing a black swan as a counterexample to the general proposition is sufficient to qualify the proposition as falsifiable.

So it's not a requirement to actually be able to make the observation as long as there's a possibility that it may be made. I find this intriguing since it is always mentioned that religion is not falsifiable because certain observations are unlikely rathar than impossible.
I don't see him saying it's impossible though. So do you agree with Popper or not?
I don't think it is impossible and it would certainly blow the theory out of the water. With the unlikelihood of it happening I don't know how much weight it carries though. I think evolution has a rather safe standard attached to it since counter evidence is always unlikely to be found rather than easily being proven or disproven through evidence which is easily come by. It's always a waiting game for evidence which is unlikely to either undisputably prove or disprove it in contrast to chemistry for example. It may not be categorically classified as pseudoscience but it is certainly in question for very valid reasons.
Information is a major factor. When you're fed just one religion it can seem plausible. When you find out there are numerous religions each with their own gods and beliefs it is more difficult for any one religion to have a hold on you. And without any way to test if one or another religion is more correct you can just as well pick one by drawing straws or just have no religion at all.
I understand your confusion but Christianity is not merely another religion for those of us that believe in it. To us Christ has proven Himself as only He can to each of us in our own special way. That is why I get offended at the word blind faith being applied by people who are here for no other reason than to spew the devil's hate.
 

sparklehorse

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
704
Ok, but that is only one small part of the theory which rests more on logical assumptions than on evolutionary assumptions. This does not seem to test the theory itself i.e. that things evolve. The symbiosis can exist for various reasons all of which can not be tested.
Well, I'm no expert on symbiosis. So I'll leave it to someone else. I doubt however that it is totally untestable. But as I posted earlier. The morphological evidence of evolution can be tested by comparing it to the molecular evidence. And thats too much evidence to just ignore.
I find the following interesting:
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show that the proposition was false, even if that observation is not actually made.
So it's not a requirement to actually be able to make the observation as long as there's a possibility that it may be made. I find this intriguing since it is always mentioned that religion is not falsifiable because certain observations are unlikely rather than impossible.
Depends on how you define god or religion. If it is observable or detectable in some way, then it could be falsifiable, because there exist a possibility in principle that you can make an observation that would show that the proposition was false. But religion or god by definition is not observable or detectable. You cannot therefore in principle make an observation that would show it to be false. Hence it is not falsifiable.
I understand your confusion but Christianity is not merely another religion for those of us that believe in it. To us Christ has proven Himself as only He can to each of us in our own special way. That is why I get offended at the word blind faith being applied by people who are here for no other reason than to spew the devil's hate.
It might be helpful to share some of this proof. For a long time I also felt sure about the reasons I had for believing in God, but over time I had to admit that those reasons were not real proof. I doubt you have real proof. Nobody for thousands of years came up with anything concrete, not from lack of trying.
I'm also quite certain that any proof you think you might have, will also be just as applicable to any other religion. In other words, a muslim, jew or pastafarian will also be able to use the same argument as proof for their religion.

So I agree with noxibox.

I'm also glad to hear that you are offended by blind faith being applied to what you believe. That means that you do seek evidence for your beliefs. In that regard, you and I are the same.
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,609
I understand your confusion but Christianity is not merely another religion for those of us that believe in it. To us Christ has proven Himself as only He can to each of us in our own special way.
Yeah there are also people who believe in santa and believe he has proven himself with his yearly gift giving.

That is why I get offended at the word blind faith being applied [...]
I have a good idea why you get offended.

[...]by people who are here for no other reason than to spew the devil's hate.
How much does the devil pay? What sort of hours does he require? Health plan? Dental?
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,609
I'm also glad to hear that you are offended by blind faith being applied to what you believe. That means that you do seek evidence for your beliefs. In that regard, you and I are the same.
Perhaps you misunderstood him or I misunderstood you, but I understood it as he gets offended when people say he believes his religion due to blind faith because they fail to take into account his delusions which he insists are real.
 

sparklehorse

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
704
Perhaps you misunderstood him or I misunderstood you, but I understood it as he gets offended when people say he believes his religion due to blind faith because they fail to take into account his delusions which he insists are real.
Dunno ;)
I took it to mean he believes that he does have some (personal) "evidence" for his religion, and that he doesn't have blind faith. In other words he does believe you have to have good reason (evidence) to believe in something.

BTW. If I am one of those people who supposedly are here to spew the devil's hate, I want to assure everyone that I think the devil is as real as god and the flying spaghetti monster and that I have no intension of spewing hate. ;)
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
Prom and dodo, after watching the documentry Jesus Camp (2006), I now understand why you are like you are. :( Shame okes.
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
It might be helpful to share some of this proof. For a long time I also felt sure about the reasons I had for believing in God, but over time I had to admit that those reasons were not real proof. I doubt you have real proof. Nobody for thousands of years came up with anything concrete, not from lack of trying.
I'm also quite certain that any proof you think you might have, will also be just as applicable to any other religion. In other words, a muslim, jew or pastafarian will also be able to use the same argument as proof for their religion.
I am not willing to share my reasons on such a public medium where it has been shown that people will simply try to tear them apart. You can call those reasons not being real proof but then what real proof do any of us have. My reasons are my own and will not apply to any other person. It is all a matter of what appeals to us which influence the way we see things and it may cause me to be biased but so is everyone else. No one has a reason to point out reasons for me not believing something when they don't know my circumstances any more than I know theirs. I'm sure you could say that my reasons would also apply to other religions but I don't believe in any of them. My God is the god of Christianity and it is He who has given me what I seek and not any other religion.
Yeah there are also people who believe in santa and believe he has proven himself with his yearly gift giving.
And your point is... you have absolutely no point.
How much does the devil pay? What sort of hours does he require? Health plan? Dental?
I don't know, ask him.
Perhaps you misunderstood him or I misunderstood you, but I understood it as he gets offended when people say he believes his religion due to blind faith because they fail to take into account his delusions which he insists are real.
I get offended because of the hypocrisy. There's only a few people here who make it unpleasant for everybody including themselves. So if you think you are doing anybody a favour you are delusional and 99% of the forum who want to hold a decent discussion don't want you here.
Prom and dodo, after watching the documentry Jesus Camp (2006), I now understand why you are like you are. :( Shame okes.
Really?! I feel pity for you. :p
 

sparklehorse

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
704
I am not willing to share my reasons on such a public medium where it has been shown that people will simply try to tear them apart.
Sure, that's your choice. But don't expect anyone to just believe you because you said so. If you want anyone to take your arguments seriously, you have to be willing to back it up. If your reasons are as good as you say, why are you afraid that it will be torn apart anyway?

You can call those reasons not being real proof but then what real proof do any of us have.
That's a silly argument. Just because you don't have proof does not mean nobody has.
My reasons are my own and will not apply to any other person. It is all a matter of what appeals to us which influence the way we see things and it may cause me to be biased but so is everyone else. No one has a reason to point out reasons for me not believing something when they don't know my circumstances any more than I know theirs.
No, I don't know your circumstances, but I have heard many arguments for god before. If you can come up with something new, by all means do. But my experience is that it's usually the same reasons rehashed a little differently to fit the argument.
I'm sure you could say that my reasons would also apply to other religions but I don't believe in any of them. My God is the god of Christianity and it is He who has given me what I seek and not any other religion.
If you say so. But I suspect you are either a Christian because you were born into Christianity, or you chose it later in life. In which case you must have thought Christianity is better that the other religions. Or like noxibox said, you didn't know of any other religions.

I get offended because of the hypocrisy. There's only a few people here who make it unpleasant for everybody including themselves. So if you think you are doing anybody a favour you are delusional and 99% of the forum who want to hold a decent discussion don't want you here.
Hypocrisy? I'm not the one asking for proof and then saying it's too personal for me to post. I try to back up my arguments with proven facts. Please do the same.

PS. I realize that I may be coming on a bit strong - especially against Prometheus. It is not my intention to offend you. But if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I know your personal beliefs are important to you, but that's even more reason for it to hold up under pressure.
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
Sure, that's your choice. But don't expect anyone to just believe you because you said so. If you want anyone to take your arguments seriously, you have to be willing to back it up. If your reasons are as good as you say, why are you afraid that it will be torn apart anyway?
I don't care who believes me or not. I don't feel I owe anybody anything. If God sees fit to prove Himself to you He will do so in His own time, it's up to you whether you are open to it or not.
That's a silly argument. Just because you don't have proof does not mean nobody has.
You're confusing the terms again. Nobody has real proof. All proof is open to interpretation and bias.
Hypocrisy? I'm not the one asking for proof and then saying it's too personal for me to post. I try to back up my arguments with proven facts. Please do the same.
In case you didn't notice I was replying to another poster. But as someone would say if the shoe fits... And before jumping on me again, I'm not saying that it fits you but that you can choose to make it fit with your replies. As said before I don't owe anyone an explanation of my reasons for believing and I don't expect one from you either. The Hypocrisy lies with the people here who think they can throw insults around and then expect not to be insulted back.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,668
Good luck with Prom and facts :D He has is own set in his own world :D
 

sparklehorse

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
704
I don't care who believes me or not. I don't feel I owe anybody anything. If God sees fit to prove Himself to you He will do so in His own time, it's up to you whether you are open to it or not.
Maybe you can ask him to post in this thread? Preferably with some evidence that it's really him.
You're confusing the terms again. Nobody has real proof. All proof is open to interpretation and bias.
Oh come on. Prove it.
In case you didn't notice I was replying to another poster. But as someone would say if the shoe fits... And before jumping on me again, I'm not saying that it fits you but that you can choose to make it fit with your replies. As said before I don't owe anyone an explanation of my reasons for believing and I don't expect one from you either. The Hypocrisy lies with the people here who think they can throw insults around and then expect not to be insulted back.
Yeah, I saw you replied to icyrus. My point was that you're just as guilty of hypocrisy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top