Why scoff science?

[Cerpin Taxt]

And naysayers is what keeps me to this belief.

Oh, that's an even better reason than the previous one.

I don't need to understand how the world was made.

If you don't need to understand how the world was made, then why do you invent a totally unnecessary and unevidenced entity in order to answer a question you yourself claim that you don't need to understand?

I need to feel comfortable feeling what I feel, and I feel fine knowing the earth was created by a being above us, God.

Please don't confuse your personal beliefs with objectively established facts. You "know" no such thing.

I don't call myself a Christian, but I would damn sure before calling myself an atheist.

Bully for you.

 

[Herbot]

herbot, you are full of fail. Humans may be fallible but they are perfectly capable of building machines that don't make mistakes. Machines built by scientists are capable of incredible precision when it comes to observing one particular phenomenon or another. Your computer may wear out over time but while it is working properly, it will never get the wrong answer to any equation you put in the calculator.

Oh really? A computer is nothing more than a collection of logic gates. You're essentially saying that humans are capable of building a super complex set of logic gates that have no errors. Are you sure? What about the FDIV bug? Exponentially complex machines have an increasingly higher chance of being flawed. Plus, until computers get infinite precision of decimals, a human with a pencil will always be able to do calculus more accurately.

 

[Herbot]

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here, but as Cerpin Taxt pointed out, it makes no sense to believe in a Creator just because one can't fathom a beginning without one.

Cosmological argument...Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are all idiots?

 

[Gibsons]

Cosmological argument...Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are all idiots?

Did Aristotle get something right? I must have missed it.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Cosmological argument...Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are all idiots?

There have been highly intelligent people who made huge contributions to society, even to science, who had faith in some kind of higher power. I never claimed these believers were idiots, just that they have no rational basis for their belief. I also somehow doubt their actual reasoning shared much in common with that of the people in this thread. These people were also far from infallible.

 

[Herbot]

Did Aristotle get something right? I must have missed it.

He said women are inferior to men, so obviously so.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

He said women are inferior to men, so obviously so.

You're not doing much for your case. :\

 

[Gibsons]

He said women are inferior to men, so obviously so.

Oh yeah, because men have more teeth. Perfect logic, we can learn a lot from him.

 

[sandorski]

Oh really? A computer is nothing more than a collection of logic gates. You're essentially saying that humans are capable of building a super complex set of logic gates that have no errors. Are you sure? What about the FDIV bug? Exponentially complex machines have an increasingly higher chance of being flawed. Plus, until computers get infinite precision of decimals, a human with a pencil will always be able to do calculus more accurately.

You're Human, you're Wrong. Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are Human, they're Wrong.

You clearly are inconsistent in your arguments.

 

[Jeff7]

Oh really? A computer is nothing more than a collection of logic gates. You're essentially saying that humans are capable of building a super complex set of logic gates that have no errors. Are you sure? What about the FDIV bug? Exponentially complex machines have an increasingly higher chance of being flawed. Plus, until computers get infinite precision of decimals, a human with a pencil will always be able to do calculus more accurately.

I'm sure the logic gates did exactly what they were designed to do.
Unfortunately, they were following a flawed design.

The fun thing about science is that it can be tested, and refined. Our laws of mathematics say that x/y = z. That's testable, and repeatable. The Pentium in question would say that x/y = z.00000001 or something like that. The flaw was found, and corrected.

So yes, we can make machines, and those machines can be fallible to some degree. But they can also be refined and improved, and their results can be retested by others to get either confirmation or conflict. But at the most basic level, if you're talking about simple logic gates, they will do exactly what they are meant to do: rudimentary logic, at a level of consistency far better than our primate brains can manage.

 

[DrPizza]

Oh really? A computer is nothing more than a collection of logic gates. You're essentially saying that humans are capable of building a super complex set of logic gates that have no errors. Are you sure? What about the FDIV bug? Exponentially complex machines have an increasingly higher chance of being flawed. Plus, until computers get infinite precision of decimals, a human with a pencil will always be able to do calculus more accurately.

I've stayed away from the little exchange you guys have had in the thread til this point. However, your claim above is absolutely laughable. My cheap desktop computer can calculate more digits of Pi in about 20 seconds than 100 men could calculate in 1000 lifetimes with paper.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cosmological argument...

...is not a sound argument.

Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are all idiots?

With respect to cosmology, yes. Anyone taking a position based solely on the knowledge available to them at their respective times would likely come to their conclusions, but we with respect to our current knowledge, they are indeed ignoramuses, and we can be sure that their conclusions are flawed.

Your silly attempt to argue by authority is noted, however.

 

[shadow9d9]

You are missing the point. It isn't that I need proof , it is that people that do not have a background in math and science need proof. You can't just claim something as true and expect people to believe it because you have the title of scientist. They need something they can personally verify on their level. Any wording like possible, maybe, could be, provides room for doubt and with nothing but the word of the scientist there will be skepticism.




What about a theory that has never been proven ? Both require faith in what they believe to be true. One is just willing to wait longer for the proof.



Sure it does. Science wouldn't even exist without it.

A theory does not equal a scientific theory.

 

[Jeff7]

I've stayed away from the little exchange you guys have had in the thread til this point. However, your claim above is absolutely laughable. My cheap desktop computer can calculate more digits of Pi in about 20 seconds than 100 men could calculate in 1000 lifetimes with paper.

Well I guess that writing out "π" would be more accurate still, because that represents the concept of pi, with complete accuracy, an idea which is impossible to fully represent numerically. And I assume that's what Herbot was getting at with doing calculus, though admittedly I don't know much about how computers calculate integrals, or if there are different methods available, depending on the software used.

 

[scopeman]

Hi there

Perhaps it is also ignorance at times of people who believe in the scientific approach, that these individuals forget that many many scientists are not atheists many are Christians and of other religions too.

Atheists and atheist authors love to in most cases mention Einstein but Einstein was never an atheist and in fact was not fond of them at all. This is not scientific fact but rather the facts about a scientist..
In fact even about the new testament he was quoted as saying that when reading about
Jesus, you cannot but feel his presence in each page as very real.

To me it is fascinating how atheists seem to be asserting the non existence of someone
they sort of know. Many evolutionary theories etc are taught at school these days ans in the past and many scientists that found evidence of the contrary and tried to make it known, have had suddenly very short carriers and poor funding. Archeologists that found
the presence of man way back when according to science he should never had been there and these people were cut off as far as funding their research etc went.

Much is hidden, and much is taken for fact when it is and never has been fact.
But it is your prerogative to believe whatever you deem to be facts, from the fact
that man originated in Africa, to Darwins facts believed to have nothing to do with
the loss of his young child and subsequent reflections.

In my ignorance I would like to recommend a book myself even coming from a poor
intellectual background and that is The Delusion of Disbelief by David Aikman.

Regards

 

[sandorski]

Hi there

Perhaps it is also ignorance at times of people who believe in the scientific approach, that these individuals forget that many many scientists are not atheists many are Christians and of other religions too.

Atheists and atheist authors love to in most cases mention Einstein but Einstein was never an atheist and in fact was not fond of them at all. This is not scientific fact but rather the facts about a scientist..
In fact even about the new testament he was quoted as saying that when reading about
Jesus, you cannot but feel his presence in each page as very real.

To me it is fascinating how atheists seem to be asserting the non existence of someone
they sort of know. Many evolutionary theories etc are taught at school these days ans in the past and many scientists that found evidence of the contrary and tried to make it known, have had suddenly very short carriers and poor funding. Archeologists that found
the presence of man way back when according to science he should never had been there and these people were cut off as far as funding their research etc went.

Much is hidden, and much is taken for fact when it is and never has been fact.
But it is your prerogative to believe whatever you deem to be facts, from the fact
that man originated in Africa, to Darwins facts believed to have nothing to do with
the loss of his young child and subsequent reflections.

In my ignorance I would like to recommend a book myself even coming from a poor
intellectual background and that is The Delusion of Disbelief by David Aikman.

Regards

Oy vey, Fail. You aren't Kink by any chance?

 

[Howard]

I dont think a deathbed confession is going to help much. Atheists will still rot in their graves while Christians live on in heaven. Poor atheists. :'(

You should add "Job: A Comedy of Justice" to your reading list.

 

[Harvey]

In my ignorance I would like to recommend a book myself even coming from a poor
intellectual background and that is The Delusion of Disbelief by David Aikman.

Regards

So you're here to pimp a book? In two threads, this one and this one?

AFIC, religion is just another political power structure based on fear and ignorance. Keep 'em in line by keeping them stupid and afraid of an unknown, supposedly all powerful ooga booga mystery being.

It's your ignorance, all right.

 

[zinfamous]

Oy vey, Fail. You aren't Kink by any chance?

PJW or Kink would be my guess....

 

[JulesMaximus]

Finally, I did grow up in a fundamentalist Christian home that did teach and believe the young earth creation myth.

I grew up in the 1980s and honestly I've never met a single fucking person in real life who believes this nonsense. We were taught science in school and that dinosaurs ruled the earth millions of years ago...there was never any question about any of this and we went to church on Sunday to learn about God and Jesus without ever hearing any of this young earth/creationist bullshit.

Science was taught in school and religion was taught in church. As it should be.

 

[AstroManLuca]

also thread necro

---

Oops. Missed that when I posted. Sorry, and thanks for pointing it out. Thread locked.

Harvey
Senior AT Mod