Why must people force their irrational reactions on a rational world?

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Thinking that one knows the answer, regardless of what is is, is about as insulated from reality as one can get.

I must be very well insulated then, in your view

I simply see, very clearly, how religion works and has worked, why it came into being, what it's done for us, and what its place is now. It's sort of like finishing a difficult puzzle and watching as otherwise intelligent people mull over it, often going down the wrong path of logic, trying to solve it... Once you've finished it, you can't un-see the answer and it looks so painfully simple.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Thinking that one knows the answer, regardless of what is is, is about as insulated from reality as one can get.

I must be very well insulated then, in your view

I simply see, very clearly, how religion works and has worked, why it came into being, what it's done for us, and what its place is now.

Oh, I simply see all of these things also. Maybe you and I would sum these up differently, but if I had to think of a word for these things the word would be "insulation".

It's sort of like finishing a difficult puzzle and watching as otherwise intelligent people mull over it, often going down the wrong path of logic, trying to solve it... Once you've finished it, you can't un-see the answer and it looks so painfully simple.

Are you trying to say that the only way that something could possibly come out of nothing is because of a god?

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: torpid
Yup, candyland is the way to go.

I gotta agree with the man.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Thinking that one knows the answer, regardless of what is is, is about as insulated from reality as one can get.

I must be very well insulated then, in your view

I simply see, very clearly, how religion works and has worked, why it came into being, what it's done for us, and what its place is now.

Oh, I simply see all of these things also. Maybe you and I would sum these up differently, but if I had to think of a word for these things the word would be "insulation".

I'd call it logic, different strokes I guess.

Edit: after considering this, I'm curious; are you taking my argument as being for a deity or deities? If so, maybe I wasn't clear enough. My contention is that the only way religion makes logical sense is when you see the quite logical effects it's had on people as a form of control; a harness, if you will. The existence of a big guy in the sky is not logical. The existence of a system whose purpose is to enforce behavior which is best for people in the long run when most weren't able to see this logically, invented and implemented by those with the intelligence and vision to see how society could benefit people, is logical.

It's sort of like finishing a difficult puzzle and watching as otherwise intelligent people mull over it, often going down the wrong path of logic, trying to solve it... Once you've finished it, you can't un-see the answer and it looks so painfully simple.

Are you trying to say that the only way that something could possibly come out of nothing is because of a god?

Not at all... I haven't even touched on the origins of matter in this thread, although I think it's ridiculous to say the only explanation is a deity or deities. Further, the big bang theory, as it stands, iirc, doesn't state that something came from nothing; only that matter was compressed to an extreme degree and then expanded explosively.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Heh the only proof you people would accept would be God saying something is so, anything else is theory Excellent insulation from reality...

Wha? I asked for a source for your claim that it's been proven that the predisposition to religion is genetic, and that implies that I believe in God?

That's an exciting new way to end an argument. I'm going to try it on my GF. "You never want to do the things I want to do". "<sigh> the only reply you'd accept here is if I said God told me to not want to do that."

 

[DAGTA]

One thing that escapes most people here, simply because you are the people here, is that most of you think you know the end-all of logic. That our understanding of logic and the world is complete and you are so proud and secure in your logical reasoning abilities. Aristotle and Socrates were two philosophers that used logic in their discussions and could persuade almost anyone to see the 'logic and truth' in their statements... and yet we now know that much of what they 'proved logically' was incorrect.

Newtonian physics were the 'end-all' answer to motion for 300 years.... until quantum mechanics came about and show that Newtonian physics are actually flawed and fall apart at extremes.

It's so easy for so many people to believe they have it all figured out and anyone who disagrees with their logic 'must be stupid'. The people of 300 years from now will be laughing at many of you for the 'logic' you believed that was wrong.

My point isn't that we should throw logic out the window and believe everything that you hear. My point is that people benefit from an open mind. An open mind means considering all sides and considering that you MIGHT be wrong. There is still a GREAT deal of this world and this universe that is not understood and is unknown. Science and logic agree with me on that statement.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
One thing that escapes most people here, simply because you are the people here, is that most of you think you know the end-all of logic. That our understanding of logic and the world is complete and you are so proud and secure in your logical reasoning abilities. Aristotle and Socrates were two philosophers that used logic in their discussions and could persuade almost anyone to see the 'logic and truth' in their statements... and yet we now know that much of what they 'proved logically' was incorrect.

Newtonian physics were the 'end-all' answer to motion for 300 years.... until quantum mechanics came about and show that Newtonian physics are actually flawed and fall apart at extremes.

It's so easy for so many people to believe they have it all figured out and anyone who disagrees with their logic 'must be stupid'. The people of 300 years from now will be laughing at many of you for the 'logic' you believed that was wrong.

My point isn't that we should throw logic out the window and believe everything that you hear. My point is that people benefit from an open mind. An open mind means considering all sides and considering that you MIGHT be wrong. There is still a GREAT deal of this world and this universe that is not understood and is unknown. Science and logic agree with me on that statement.

As do I. It seems that you've reiterated my point quite well. We may not know it now, or we may even be wrong, but why force irrational ideas on things that can be explained logically, even if we don't yet have the tools to explain it properly.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
One thing that escapes most people here, simply because you are the people here, is that most of you think you know the end-all of logic. That our understanding of logic and the world is complete and you are so proud and secure in your logical reasoning abilities. Aristotle and Socrates were two philosophers that used logic in their discussions and could persuade almost anyone to see the 'logic and truth' in their statements... and yet we now know that much of what they 'proved logically' was incorrect.

Newtonian physics were the 'end-all' answer to motion for 300 years.... until quantum mechanics came about and show that Newtonian physics are actually flawed and fall apart at extremes.

It's so easy for so many people to believe they have it all figured out and anyone who disagrees with their logic 'must be stupid'. The people of 300 years from now will be laughing at many of you for the 'logic' you believed that was wrong.

My point isn't that we should throw logic out the window and believe everything that you hear. My point is that people benefit from an open mind. An open mind means considering all sides and considering that you MIGHT be wrong. There is still a GREAT deal of this world and this universe that is not understood and is unknown. Science and logic agree with me on that statement.

Point conceded, but not agreed with. I will however take you up on your insinuation that I feel others, notably religious people, "must be stupid". I've never said this. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
Until you disprove it to me, I really see no reason to change my beliefs.

I think everyone agrees on the principles of logic. If you make a claim, you need to prove it. The burden of proof lies with the person makingthe claim.

Like Bush had to prove that there were WMD's in Iraq, as there was no reasonable way that it could be disproven.

Actually, if Person A makes a supposition to Person B, the burden of proof falls upon Person B.

Thus, the real logic would be:
Person A: I think air is made of cheese.
Person B: No, you're wrong, because ____.
Person C: B is correct!

Not:
Person A: I think air is made of cheese.
Person B: Prove it to me.
Person C: B is correct!
Person D: C, you're a douche.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
Until you disprove it to me, I really see no reason to change my beliefs.

I think everyone agrees on the principles of logic. If you make a claim, you need to prove it. The burden of proof lies with the person makingthe claim.

Like Bush had to prove that there were WMD's in Iraq, as there was no reasonable way that it could be disproven.

Actually, if Person A makes a supposition to Person B, the burden of proof falls upon Person B.

Thus, the real logic would be:
Person A: I think air is made of cheese.
Person B: No, you're wrong, because ____.
Person C: B is correct!

Not:
Person A: I think air is made of cheese.
Person B: Prove it to me.
Person C: B is correct!
Person D: C, you're a douche.

Hey everybody, Amorphus has killed a lot of people!!!!!! OMGWTF!!!???!!!

Ok, now it's amorphus's job to prove to all of us on Anandtech that he has not killed a lot of people.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DAGTA
One thing that escapes most people here, simply because you are the people here, is that most of you think you know the end-all of logic. That our understanding of logic and the world is complete and you are so proud and secure in your logical reasoning abilities. Aristotle and Socrates were two philosophers that used logic in their discussions and could persuade almost anyone to see the 'logic and truth' in their statements... and yet we now know that much of what they 'proved logically' was incorrect.

Newtonian physics were the 'end-all' answer to motion for 300 years.... until quantum mechanics came about and show that Newtonian physics are actually flawed and fall apart at extremes.

It's so easy for so many people to believe they have it all figured out and anyone who disagrees with their logic 'must be stupid'. The people of 300 years from now will be laughing at many of you for the 'logic' you believed that was wrong.

My point isn't that we should throw logic out the window and believe everything that you hear. My point is that people benefit from an open mind. An open mind means considering all sides and considering that you MIGHT be wrong. There is still a GREAT deal of this world and this universe that is not understood and is unknown. Science and logic agree with me on that statement.

Point conceded, but not agreed with. I will however take you up on your insinuation that I feel others, notably religious people, "must be stupid". I've never said this. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't name you directly, Gurck.

Actually, I'm guilty of that. I grew up bouncing between agnostic and atheist. Never went to church or studied any religion. I was totally a science and math geek and relied on science and logic for answers to everything. I DID think people that were religious were stupid and/or brain-washed. I was very quick to cast judgement on these people and quick to dispute everything I heard about any religion.

Now I consider myself a Christian but I still do not attend any church because I can't stand the hypocrisy and I'm not comfortable in most churches. I still like to learn logical explanations for events... but I admit to experiencing things I cannot logically explain. I hope to know the answers someday.

I try very hard not to come across as trying to 'convert' people or force my beliefs on anyone. I HATED that when I was younger and still very much dislike it when I see people doing it or have people do it to me. (Did you know claiming to believe is not enough to stop door-to-door missionaries, especially Mormons? They'll STILL try to talk to you like you know nothing about their faith, but I digress...)

Anytime I enter a Christianity debate, I try to only post facts about what that book (The Bible) says without actually telling people what to believe.

Anyway, I do believe there is more to reality than we currently know an understand. I do believe there are other realms and I do believe in ghosts and some of the supernatural. However, I cannot prove any of it, so I often don't try.

-DAGTA

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: DAGTA
One thing that escapes most people here, simply because you are the people here, is that most of you think you know the end-all of logic. That our understanding of logic and the world is complete and you are so proud and secure in your logical reasoning abilities. Aristotle and Socrates were two philosophers that used logic in their discussions and could persuade almost anyone to see the 'logic and truth' in their statements... and yet we now know that much of what they 'proved logically' was incorrect.

Newtonian physics were the 'end-all' answer to motion for 300 years.... until quantum mechanics came about and show that Newtonian physics are actually flawed and fall apart at extremes.

It's so easy for so many people to believe they have it all figured out and anyone who disagrees with their logic 'must be stupid'. The people of 300 years from now will be laughing at many of you for the 'logic' you believed that was wrong.

My point isn't that we should throw logic out the window and believe everything that you hear. My point is that people benefit from an open mind. An open mind means considering all sides and considering that you MIGHT be wrong. There is still a GREAT deal of this world and this universe that is not understood and is unknown. Science and logic agree with me on that statement.

Point conceded, but not agreed with. I will however take you up on your insinuation that I feel others, notably religious people, "must be stupid". I've never said this. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't name you directly, Gurck.

Actually, I'm guilty of that. I grew up bouncing between agnostic and atheist. Never went to church or studied any religion. I was totally a science and math geek and relied on science and logic for answers to everything. I DID think people that were religious were stupid and/or brain-washed. I was very quick to cast judgement on these people and quick to dispute everything I heard about any religion.

Now I consider myself a Christian but I still do not attend any church because I can't stand the hypocrisy and I'm not comfortable in most churches. I still like to learn logical explanations for events... but I admit to experiencing things I cannot logically explain. I hope to know the answers someday.

I try very hard not to come across as trying to 'convert' people or force my beliefs on anyone. I HATED that when I was younger and still very much dislike it when I see people doing it or have people do it to me. (Did you know claiming to believe is not enough to stop door-to-door missionaries, especially Mormons? They'll STILL try to talk to you like you know nothing about their faith, but I digress...)

Anytime I enter a Christianity debate, I try to only post facts about what that book (The Bible) says without actually telling people what to believe.

Anyway, I do believe there is more to reality than we currently know an understand. I do believe there are other realms and I do believe in ghosts and some of the supernatural. However, I cannot prove any of it, so I often don't try.

-DAGTA

'That book" is very important, but I feel that people tend to forget that, even if 'God' dictated it, men were sitting at the keyobard, figuratively speaking. It has been translated and copied by hand so many times, that the political influnces in it should be patently obvious.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: So'That book" is very important, but I feel that people tend to forget that, even if 'God' dictated it, men were sitting at the keyobard, figuratively speaking. It has been translated and copied by hand so many times, that the political influnces in it should be patently obvious.

And that is one aspect I have never argued because that falls into the category of believing it or not. I post usually when someone is saying something about Christianity/the Bible that is either skewed or blatently wrong. Then I'll try to post what the Bible says. I'm not arguing whether or not to believe it's contents, I'm simply trying to correct ignorance, misconceptions, and blatents lies.

I strongly feel a person has no ground to stand on arguing a book he/she has not read. If someone wanted to argue the contents of the Harry Potters books but hadn't read them, wouldnt' that be considered absurb? Yet, many many people think they are qualified to argue the Bible though they've never read it. If you view it as just another book, arguing it without having read it is just as absurd as the Harry Potter example.

-DAGTA

 

[So]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Another thing, we do not live in a rational world. Existance is one of the most irrational things ever. There are certain laws that seem to govern everything perfectly on a large scope but then when you get to the sub-atomic level the laws of physics are thrown out the window. Us being here is highly irrational, did the universe just pop out of nowhere or was there something before it?
Think about life for a bit and the irrationality will blow your mind.

I disagree, Quantum physics are rational, they just defy common sense (at least on the macroscopic level). As for our being here? Completely rational. The reason we can wonder about it is because we happen to exist, if we didn't exist, if the dice hadn't fallen correctly, well, so what? Also, I think considering the size of the univers and the number of planets that are likely out there (from more recent which have upped the number of planets we think exist) I think intelligent life is not all that unlikely.

I'm talking about where the original matter came from.

Just because we don't have a well defined explanation for that yet (or perhaps I haven't fully grasped it) doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Well defined explanation? Hahaha. How about non-existant explanation.

The matter that is currently in the universe that we all reside in had to have come from something and that something had to have come from something else and so on.

Regardless of how you cut it, the matter that is here had to have come from nothing. Something coming out of nothing is a very irrational idea. I really hate to bring semantics into an argument as profound as this, but touching on my previous post about existance being subjective, if we(as humans) are unable to comprehend how something can come out of nothing would that not mean that it is irrational?

I don't think that our inability to comprehend something does make it irrational, our compreshension of something has no bearing on it's rationality. Did our inability to comprehend motion in the pre newtonian days make the motion of objects irrational? Did our inability to comprehend flight make it irrational that birds did? No, it just meant that we didn't understand how it worked.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Thinking that one knows the answer, regardless of what is is, is about as insulated from reality as one can get.

I must be very well insulated then, in your view

I simply see, very clearly, how religion works and has worked, why it came into being, what it's done for us, and what its place is now.

Oh, I simply see all of these things also. Maybe you and I would sum these up differently, but if I had to think of a word for these things the word would be "insulation".

I'd call it logic, different strokes I guess.

Edit: after considering this, I'm curious; are you taking my argument as being for a deity or deities? If so, maybe I wasn't clear enough. My contention is that the only way religion makes logical sense is when you see the quite logical effects it's had on people as a form of control; a harness, if you will. The existence of a big guy in the sky is not logical. The existence of a system whose purpose is to enforce behavior which is best for people in the long run when most weren't able to see this logically, invented and implemented by those with the intelligence and vision to see how society could benefit people, is logical.

I agree completely with your edited statement, the reason why religion exists makes perfect logical sense and as I said before it's because people could insulate others from the great cosmic beyond and control them.

It's sort of like finishing a difficult puzzle and watching as otherwise intelligent people mull over it, often going down the wrong path of logic, trying to solve it... Once you've finished it, you can't un-see the answer and it looks so painfully simple.

Are you trying to say that the only way that something could possibly come out of nothing is because of a god?

Not at all... I haven't even touched on the origins of matter in this thread, although I think it's ridiculous to say the only explanation is a deity or deities. Further, the big bang theory, as it stands, iirc, doesn't state that something came from nothing; only that matter was compressed to an extreme degree and then expanded explosively.[/quote]
The only reason why I said this is because I thought you were arguing for a god and the only logical explanation that that I can see someone having for an existance of a god is where all of this stuff came from.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: So'That book" is very important, but I feel that people tend to forget that, even if 'God' dictated it, men were sitting at the keyobard, figuratively speaking. It has been translated and copied by hand so many times, that the political influnces in it should be patently obvious.

And that is one aspect I have never argued because that falls into the category of believing it or not. I post usually when someone is saying something about Christianity/the Bible that is either skewed or blatently wrong. Then I'll try to post what the Bible says. I'm not arguing whether or not to believe it's contents, I'm simply trying to correct ignorance, misconceptions, and blatents lies.

I strongly feel a person has no ground to stand on arguing a book he/she has not read. If someone wanted to argue the contents of the Harry Potters books but hadn't read them, wouldnt' that be considered absurb? Yet, many many people think they are qualified to argue the Bible though they've never read it. If you view it as just another book, arguing it without having read it is just as absurd as the Harry Potter example.

-DAGTA

Granted, but I think the bible is a little different, because it does form so much of the spine or our literary history that it is impossible for anyone (even the most illeterate rubes in our society) to get away without knowing something about it. Still, I never object to someone literally citing what th book says (I commend it, in fact), but I take the text with a grain of salt.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: So'That book" is very important, but I feel that people tend to forget that, even if 'God' dictated it, men were sitting at the keyobard, figuratively speaking. It has been translated and copied by hand so many times, that the political influnces in it should be patently obvious.

And that is one aspect I have never argued because that falls into the category of believing it or not. I post usually when someone is saying something about Christianity/the Bible that is either skewed or blatently wrong. Then I'll try to post what the Bible says. I'm not arguing whether or not to believe it's contents, I'm simply trying to correct ignorance, misconceptions, and blatents lies.

I strongly feel a person has no ground to stand on arguing a book he/she has not read. If someone wanted to argue the contents of the Harry Potters books but hadn't read them, wouldnt' that be considered absurb? Yet, many many people think they are qualified to argue the Bible though they've never read it. If you view it as just another book, arguing it without having read it is just as absurd as the Harry Potter example.

-DAGTA

Granted, but I think the bible is a little different, because it does form so much of the spine or our literary history that it is impossible for anyone (even the most illeterate rubes in our society) to get away without knowing something about it. Still, I never object to someone literally citing what th book says (I commend it, in fact), but I take the text with a grain of salt.

Also, arguing it without having read it means you are relying on second-hand information someone has told you or you read from another source. Second hand information is going to have it's spin put on it by the people that gave it to you.

Yes, it's true the Bible has been translated many times since it's first version, but which is closer to the source... the translated version or the persion telling you about the translated version based on what he/she knows from a few other people he/she heard it from?

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Another thing, we do not live in a rational world. Existance is one of the most irrational things ever. There are certain laws that seem to govern everything perfectly on a large scope but then when you get to the sub-atomic level the laws of physics are thrown out the window. Us being here is highly irrational, did the universe just pop out of nowhere or was there something before it?
Think about life for a bit and the irrationality will blow your mind.

I disagree, Quantum physics are rational, they just defy common sense (at least on the macroscopic level). As for our being here? Completely rational. The reason we can wonder about it is because we happen to exist, if we didn't exist, if the dice hadn't fallen correctly, well, so what? Also, I think considering the size of the univers and the number of planets that are likely out there (from more recent which have upped the number of planets we think exist) I think intelligent life is not all that unlikely.

I'm talking about where the original matter came from.

Just because we don't have a well defined explanation for that yet (or perhaps I haven't fully grasped it) doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Well defined explanation? Hahaha. How about non-existant explanation.

The matter that is currently in the universe that we all reside in had to have come from something and that something had to have come from something else and so on.

Regardless of how you cut it, the matter that is here had to have come from nothing. Something coming out of nothing is a very irrational idea. I really hate to bring semantics into an argument as profound as this, but touching on my previous post about existance being subjective, if we(as humans) are unable to comprehend how something can come out of nothing would that not mean that it is irrational?

I don't think that our inability to comprehend something does make it irrational, our compreshension of something has no bearing on it's rationality.

Semanticly it does, which is why I hated to bring semantics into all of this.

Did our inability to comprehend motion in the pre newtonian days make the motion of objects irrational? Did our inability to comprehend flight make it irrational that birds did? No, it just meant that we didn't understand how it worked.

Newton only explained things that we could observe. It was obvious that objects moved and birds flew, people could see them with their owns eyes, it was just that nobody had provided an explanation for how it worked.

I realise that it is very obvious that we are here and that matter is here so my previous statement could be used to prove your point, but as it stands now matter coming out of nothing is just as illogical as a god creating everything.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Thinking that one knows the answer, regardless of what is is, is about as insulated from reality as one can get.

I must be very well insulated then, in your view

I simply see, very clearly, how religion works and has worked, why it came into being, what it's done for us, and what its place is now.

Oh, I simply see all of these things also. Maybe you and I would sum these up differently, but if I had to think of a word for these things the word would be "insulation".

I'd call it logic, different strokes I guess.

Edit: after considering this, I'm curious; are you taking my argument as being for a deity or deities? If so, maybe I wasn't clear enough. My contention is that the only way religion makes logical sense is when you see the quite logical effects it's had on people as a form of control; a harness, if you will. The existence of a big guy in the sky is not logical. The existence of a system whose purpose is to enforce behavior which is best for people in the long run when most weren't able to see this logically, invented and implemented by those with the intelligence and vision to see how society could benefit people, is logical.

I agree completely with your edited statement, the reason why religion exists makes perfect logical sense and as I said before it's because people could insulate others from the great cosmic beyond and control them.

It's sort of like finishing a difficult puzzle and watching as otherwise intelligent people mull over it, often going down the wrong path of logic, trying to solve it... Once you've finished it, you can't un-see the answer and it looks so painfully simple.

Are you trying to say that the only way that something could possibly come out of nothing is because of a god?

Not at all... I haven't even touched on the origins of matter in this thread, although I think it's ridiculous to say the only explanation is a deity or deities. Further, the big bang theory, as it stands, iirc, doesn't state that something came from nothing; only that matter was compressed to an extreme degree and then expanded explosively.

The only reason why I said this is because I thought you were arguing for a god and the only logical explanation that that I can see someone having for an existance of a god is where all of this stuff came from.[/quote]

My own fault, I'm a visual thinker to an extreme and while I try hard and think I can sometimes do a good job of translating my mental ramblings to text, I just as often fail miserably

 

[So]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Another thing, we do not live in a rational world. Existance is one of the most irrational things ever. There are certain laws that seem to govern everything perfectly on a large scope but then when you get to the sub-atomic level the laws of physics are thrown out the window. Us being here is highly irrational, did the universe just pop out of nowhere or was there something before it?
Think about life for a bit and the irrationality will blow your mind.

I disagree, Quantum physics are rational, they just defy common sense (at least on the macroscopic level). As for our being here? Completely rational. The reason we can wonder about it is because we happen to exist, if we didn't exist, if the dice hadn't fallen correctly, well, so what? Also, I think considering the size of the univers and the number of planets that are likely out there (from more recent which have upped the number of planets we think exist) I think intelligent life is not all that unlikely.

I'm talking about where the original matter came from.

Just because we don't have a well defined explanation for that yet (or perhaps I haven't fully grasped it) doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Well defined explanation? Hahaha. How about non-existant explanation.

The matter that is currently in the universe that we all reside in had to have come from something and that something had to have come from something else and so on.

Regardless of how you cut it, the matter that is here had to have come from nothing. Something coming out of nothing is a very irrational idea. I really hate to bring semantics into an argument as profound as this, but touching on my previous post about existance being subjective, if we(as humans) are unable to comprehend how something can come out of nothing would that not mean that it is irrational?

I don't think that our inability to comprehend something does make it irrational, our compreshension of something has no bearing on it's rationality.

Semanticly it does, which is why I hated to bring semantics into all of this.

Did our inability to comprehend motion in the pre newtonian days make the motion of objects irrational? Did our inability to comprehend flight make it irrational that birds did? No, it just meant that we didn't understand how it worked.

Newton only explained things that we could observe. It was obvious that objects moved and birds flew, people could see them with their owns eyes, it was just that nobody had provided an explanation for how it worked.

I realise that it is very obvious that we are here and that matter is here so my previous statement could be used to prove your point, but as it stands now matter coming out of nothing is just as illogical as a god creating everything.

You're right, both could explain ithe creation of matter, but god does not offer a logical explaination for 'how' it happened, a physical phenomena does.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: her209
There are a lot of things science can't prove.

Name these 'lots' of things... YET being able to prove something is not the same as NOT being able to prove something.

K, prove that ghosts do not exist.

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

I hate thinking about this. Existance doesnt make sense. I'm agnostic, how does stuff come from nowhere? If you say "God" did it, well where did he come from? Who made him, who made the thing that made him etc. Its like looking at a mirror reflected in a mirror, goes on forever

Another thing that bugs me, does the universe go forever? cause how could something not exist, my brain hurts again

 

[So]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: her209
There are a lot of things science can't prove.

Name these 'lots' of things... YET being able to prove something is not the same as NOT being able to prove something.

K, prove that ghosts do not exist.

I think we've made it pretty clear that the existance of ghosts is the claim here, therefore, the burden of proof of ghosts is a claim made my non-scientists, not scientists. Read the posts explaining logic above.

For the burden of proof to lie with scientists, we have to be making the logical claim. You have to ask us to prove something DOES EXIST, just like YOU have to prove that ghosts exist.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: her209
There are a lot of things science can't prove.

Name these 'lots' of things... YET being able to prove something is not the same as NOT being able to prove something.

K, prove that ghosts do not exist.

I think we've made it pretty clear that the existance of ghosts is the claim here, therefore, the burden of proof of ghosts is a claim made my non-scientists, not scientists. Read the posts explaining logic above.

For the burden of proof to lie with scientists, we have to be making the logical claim. You have to ask us to prove something DOES EXIST, just like YOU have to prove that ghosts exist.

*nod* I went through this in the other thread, with about 5 god-squad members trying to tell me that atheism was the theory which had to be proven, not "God" :roll:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: her209
There are a lot of things science can't prove.

Name these 'lots' of things... YET being able to prove something is not the same as NOT being able to prove something.

K, prove that ghosts do not exist.

I think we've made it pretty clear that the existance of ghosts is the claim here, therefore, the burden of proof of ghosts is a claim made my non-scientists, not scientists. Read the posts explaining logic above.

For the burden of proof to lie with scientists, we have to be making the logical claim. You have to ask us to prove something DOES EXIST, just like YOU have to prove that ghosts exist.

*nod* I went through this in the other thread, with about 5 god-squad members trying to tell me that atheism was the theory which had to be proven, not "God" :roll:

*sigh*

:beer: