NationStates Jolt Archive

If we can't even trust a human being who has the power of a mere country, how do we trust a Supreme Being who has the power of (at least) the entire Universe?

Some people consider science offensive because it "tests" God, thereby revealing our lack of faith. For me though, I think it is impossible to truly believe something without a clear understanding of what it is.

This is why we need science - for all we know God could be a cosmic prankster who loves chocolate and cares very little about everything else.

Here is my detailed article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/11/top-five-reasons-why-science-is-t3h.html) on why science is cool.

More importantly, why am I not doing that sort of research?

Yes, why aren't you?

To test God implies that you are superior to God, which you arnt.

Science testing God? I don't think so. Science is only trying to understand more of His creation.

If we can't even trust a human being who has the power of a mere country, how do we trust a Supreme Being who has the power of (at least) the entire Universe?

Some people consider science offensive because it "tests" God, thereby revealing our lack of faith. For me though, I think it is impossible to truly believe something without a clear understanding of what it is.

This is why we need science (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/11/top-five-reasons-why-science-is-t3h.html); for all we know God could be a cosmic prankster who loves chocolate and cares very little about everything else.

I think that's a testable hypothesis ;)

I believe that the way God designed the universe and the way he designed us, his purpose was for us to understand (to some degree) the awesomeness of his power. The order of the universe can never fully be understood by man. Only God can call the stars by name and count the hairs on our heads. I ask the question, how can you look at science and not have faith in the Lord, the almighty creator of all?!

Science testing God? I don't think so. Science is only trying to understand more of His creation.

WELL SAID!!!

Yes, why aren't you?

Good question.

The best jobs are never advertised, my friend. :D

To test God implies that you are superior to God, which you arnt.


I don't believe that science is testing God.

In addition, you don't have to be superior to anybody to test them.

I believe that the way God designed the universe and the way he designed us, his purpose was for us to understand (to some degree) the awesomeness of his power. The order of the universe can never fully be understood by man. Only God can call the stars by name and count the hairs on our heads. I ask the question, how can you look at science and not have faith in the Lord, the almighty creator of all?!

Bad example. We can also call the stars by name and count the hairs on our heads.

Do I see God when I look at science? Maybe. Except he... um... is somewhat different...

To test God implies that you are superior to God, which you arnt.

Ummm to test God implies that you are superior to God?

I read it, I ponderd over it, yet I still can't see it.

Soooooo how then does it work that way?

If we can't even trust a human being who has the power of a mere country, how do we trust a Supreme Being who has the power of (at least) the entire Universe?

Because human beings are short sighted, narrow minded, and fallible, whereas God has none of these limitations. He's never let me down, therefore I can trust him.

Some people consider science offensive because it "tests" God, thereby revealing our lack of faith. For me though, I think it is impossible to truly believe something without a clear understanding of what it is.

"If a man does not comprehend God, he does not comprehend himself." or in other words, if we don't understand something about who God is then it is impossible to have faith in Him. That's why God calls prophets, and causes that they should write the revelations He gives them, so we don't have to stumble around in the dark, wondering what we are really living for.

This is why we need science...

I personally believe that a person knows nothing of God unless he has the humility and faith to ask Him about it. "no man knoweth the things of God, except by the Spirit of God." Or in other words, no person knows anything about God unless God reveals it to him by the Spirit. Paul also says that "the world by wisdom know not God". So worldly wisdom, such as science is, really can't help us to get to know who God is.

I know, however, that if we will ask in faith to know if God is, believing that He can give unto us to know this thing, that He will give us a manifestation of His spirit, such that we may know that He is.

I know this because I have experienced it. At a time in my life when I was questioning my belief in God, I came right out and asked Him, in prayer, if He was really there, or if my belief in Him was all just a delusion of my mind... All that I feel at liberty to say is this: I know that there is a God, and that He loves us more than we can comprehend.

*snip*You obviously are not speaking of the biblical God, so what deity do you mean?
.

To test God implies that you are superior to God, which you arnt.

Surely a human being is superior to an imaginary being created by humans?

Because human beings are short sighted, narrow minded, and fallible, whereas God has none of these limitations. He's never let me down, therefore I can trust him.



"If a man does not comprehend God, he does not comprehend himself." or in other words, if we don't understand something about who God is then it is impossible to have faith in Him. That's why God calls prophets, and causes that they should write the revelations He gives them, so we don't have to stumble around in the dark, wondering what we are really living for.



I personally believe that a person knows nothing of God unless he has the humility and faith to ask Him about it. "no man knoweth the things of God, except by the Spirit of God." Or in other words, no person knows anything about God unless God reveals it to him by the Spirit. Paul also says that "the world by wisdom know not God". So worldly wisdom, such as science is, really can't help us to get to know who God is.

I know, however, that if we will ask in faith to know if God is, believing that He can give unto us to know this thing, that He will give us a manifestation of His spirit, such that we may know that He is.

I know this because I have experienced it. At a time in my life when I was questioning my belief in God, I came right out and asked Him, in prayer, if He was really there, or if my belief in Him was all just a delusion of my mind... All that I feel at liberty to say is this: I know that there is a God, and that He loves us more than we can comprehend.

Rather strange, because the God I know is obsessed with chocolates and likes to wear cool shades. :cool:

Don't ask me how I know - it's simply true.

We can test the concept of 'God', see if it holds up rationally.
To test God assumes God's existence. In all mainstream religions with which I am familiar, testing the God in which you believe is considered the height of hubris.
So if you don't believe in God, you can't test God as an entity, only as a concept. And if you do believe in God you mustn't test God, even if you can work out how.

I don't believe that science is testing God.

In addition, you don't have to be superior to anybody to test them.

Sorry, superior or equal.

Bottom line is that if you want to test something, it implies that to one extent or another you understand the subject matter being tested. By nature of that understanding, it puts you in a superior position, as you can predict and work out events that will trigger certian outcomes. IE it puts you in control.

We can test the concept of 'God', see if it holds up rationally.
To test God assumes God's existence. In all mainstream religions with which I am familiar, testing the God in which you believe is considered the height of hubris.
So if you don't believe in God, you can't test God as an entity, only as a concept. And if you do believe in God you mustn't test God, even if you can work out how.

What's the diff between an entity and a concept? :confused:

If you can formulate a clear hypothesis, you should be able to test it either way.

Sorry, superior or equal.

Bottom line is that if you want to test something, it implies that to one extent or another you understand the subject matter being tested. By nature of that understanding, it puts you in a superior position, as you can predict and work out events that will trigger certian outcomes. IE it puts you in control.

Meh. Us science-folks test Nature all the time, but yet we understand that Nature is always boss.

Of course if you believe that God is way superior to Nature than we can never "test" God, since all of our experiments will simply be dodged.

Still, so many Gods have yielded to science. Thor for example, is now a bunch of electrical discharges in clouds. Why didn't he dodge the experiments to test him?

I personally don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god (or any god, for that matter), but even I can tell you that Christianity is based not on what can be proven with scientific experiments, but on what one must simply have faith in because it can't be proven.

I personally don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god (or any god, for that matter), but even I can tell you that Christianity is based not on what can be proven with scientific experiments, but on what one must simply have faith in because it can't be proven.

How can something that is not proven be true?

If stuff that is supported by evidence is not good enough, how can stuff that is not supported by evidence command your every faith? :confused:

What's the diff between an entity and a concept? :confused:

If you can formulate a clear hypothesis, you should be able to test it either way.

Basically you cannot, with natural science (physics, chemistry, etc), rule out the idea of God.

To do so could only be done by means of philosophy, and in that case you are dealing with "if God existed then..." not with "God exists, and we can test him by putting this situation in place and seeing the result".
So it's impossible to test god in terms of the original post, and millennia of philosophy has failed to prove or disprove god, and so it remains a matter of faith and opinion.

Basically you cannot, with natural science (physics, chemistry, etc), rule out the idea of God.

To do so could only be done by means of philosophy, and in that case you are dealing with "if God existed then..." not with "God exists, and we can test him by putting this situation in place and seeing the result".
So it's impossible to test god in terms of the original post, and millennia of philosophy has failed to prove or disprove god, and so it remains a matter of faith and opinion.

You cannot rule out the idea of God as an ethereal concept, but I'm sure that if specific claims of God's characteristics are made, these can be investigated in a falsifiable manner.

Surely a human being is superior to an imaginary being created by humans?

Heheh this is sooo funny. So you have proof of that then?

Noo wait, hold on, you don't have proof, yet you belife it anyway, say you just placed your faith in that idea without anysort of proof whatsoever!


Gee I guess the gap between the religous and the non religious is getting smaller everyday huh!

Heheh this is sooo funny. So you have proof of that then?

Noo wait, hold on, you don't have proof, yet you belife it anyway, say you just placed your faith in that idea without anysort of proof whatsoever!


Gee I guess the gap between the religous and the non religious is getting smaller everyday huh!
To use an old analogy, there are pink flying unicorns in my garden. You must agree that they are equally likely to exist as they are to not exist, since you don't have any proof :rolleyes:

Heheh this is sooo funny. So you have proof of that then?

Noo wait, hold on, you don't have proof, yet you belife it anyway, say you just placed your faith in that idea without anysort of proof whatsoever!


Gee I guess the gap between the religous and the non religious is getting smaller everyday huh!

Do you still believe in Santa Claus as well or at some point you "lost faith" - if so why?

You cannot rule out the idea of God as an ethereal concept, but I'm sure that if specific claims of God's characteristics are made, these can be investigated in a falsifiable manner.

Consider how to disprove the omnipotence of God.
This requires two things. First to come up with something God would be certain to prevent if he could. Second to make that happen.

(the apparent contortions are to avoid trying to prove a negative.)

The first step is impossible. It is obvious from human history that if there is a god, he is quite willing to allow vast suffering to go on, for whatever reason - so nothing we, as humans, can do would be guaranteed to make God act.

Actions attributed to a god...that we can use material methods to disprove. Attributes a god is meant to have? The most you can do is force a retreat to "God moves in mysterious ways."

Meh. Us science-folks test Nature all the time, but yet we understand that Nature is always boss.

Of course if you believe that God is way superior to Nature than we can never "test" God, since all of our experiments will simply be dodged.

Still, so many Gods have yielded to science. Thor for example, is now a bunch of electrical discharges in clouds. Why didn't he dodge the experiments to test him?

He was too busy smiting giants with Mjolinr.

How can something that is not proven be true?

If stuff that is supported by evidence is not good enough, how can stuff that is not supported by evidence command your every faith? :confused:

Evidance and proof are two differant things. Water on the floor is evidance that it rained, not proof of such.

Evidance can, like a lot of stuff, be viewed in more than one way. The things in your life that you hold to be true, may not be so. Those scientific facts that you view as absolute are not but subjective, if at the very least they are relative to our human senses.

In the end, every thing we think we know we don't. That is we have evidance that it is this way or that way, but evvidance is not proof. Ultimatly then we all have a measure of faith on many things in our day to day lives.

Which begs the question, why is my sort of faith a target for ridicule, and yours looked upon as normality?

God might be a physical being. Who knows. In any case, the purpose of Testing God isn't to hold the almighty in any way accountable but to open our own perception of it up to re-evaluation.

My view has always been that God is a matter of abstraction. Whether or not you see it depends on how you look at the world, and its primary impact is the change that this God-lens causes in its observers.

To use an old analogy, there are pink flying unicorns in my garden. You must agree that they are equally likely to exist as they are to not exist, since you don't have any proof :rolleyes:I could then believe in pink flying unicorns in your garden. But as soon as numerous other folks tell me that the unicorns are not pink or do not fly or lack a horn there is no point in sticking to the belief any further.
Nevertheless people stick to the belief in the biblical god although they could know that the bible lies in respect to human "experience" with god in ancient times. Likewise there is no point in sticking to the belief in the biblical god since numerous other sources render a completely different picture of the god that was put into the bible.

Consider how to disprove the omnipotence of God.
This requires two things. First to come up with something God would be certain to prevent if he could. Second to make that happen.

(the apparent contortions are to avoid trying to prove a negative.)

The first step is impossible. It is obvious from human history that if there is a god, he is quite willing to allow vast suffering to go on, for whatever reason - so nothing we, as humans, can do would be guaranteed to make God act.

Actions attributed to a god...that we can use material methods to disprove. Attributes a god is meant to have? The most you can do is force a retreat to "God moves in mysterious ways."

I f you want to logicaly disprove God, the only recourse opne to you is to take a religions view of what God is, and then show logicaly any inconsitancies in this view. This does not really disprove Gods existance, but can show how one view or another of God is wrong.

To put it simply: God wants science.

Sorry, superior or equal.

Bottom line is that if you want to test something, it implies that to one extent or another you understand the subject matter being tested. By nature of that understanding, it puts you in a superior position, as you can predict and work out events that will trigger certian outcomes. IE it puts you in control.

I understand physics to a degree and physics OWNS me.

To use an old analogy, there are pink flying unicorns in my garden. You must agree that they are equally likely to exist as they are to not exist, since you don't have any proof :rolleyes:

No I don't have proof for the existance of the pink flyingg unicorn. But unless you can show some evidance for it's existance then I won't belive in it. If however you have some evidance, then I may in time become a beliver, if I view your evidacne in a favourable light, if such evidance can convince me. Subjectivly speaking of course.;)

Consider how to disprove the omnipotence of God.
This requires two things. First to come up with something God would be certain to prevent if he could. Second to make that happen.

(the apparent contortions are to avoid trying to prove a negative.)

The first step is impossible. It is obvious from human history that if there is a god, he is quite willing to allow vast suffering to go on, for whatever reason - so nothing we, as humans, can do would be guaranteed to make God act.

Actions attributed to a god...that we can use material methods to disprove. Attributes a god is meant to have? The most you can do is force a retreat to "God moves in mysterious ways."

Good post. Thanks for the clarification.

Basically you cannot, with natural science (physics, chemistry, etc), rule out the idea of God.


Depends on your belief in God for some people there maybe evidence to them that rules out their God, but as God is not a clearly defind idea and everyones perseption (or lack thereof) is different then you run into the problems.

*snip* This does not really disprove Gods existance, but can show how one view or another of God is wrong.

Yes I was thinking along these lines. :)

For example, science can investigate if "God answers prayers".

I f you want to logicaly disprove God, the only recourse opne to you is to take a religions view of what God is, and then show logicaly any inconsitancies in this view. This does not really disprove Gods existance, but can show how one view or another of God is wrong.

Precisely. To disprove a conception of God requires philosophical argument, not empirical science.

As to why 'faith' in what we are shown in the world around us is less faith than faith in God, think about it.

The first is a small dose of faith that makes a vast slew of evidence into sufficient proof for us to operate in the everyday world.
The other is a large dollop of pure faith in something that has no evidence, other than that people have thought it true in the past - the same which is true for various things now known to be untrue - and which is not necessary to operate in the real world.

There is nothing wrong with having faith in God, it is an intensely personal thing, bringing both benefits and disadvantages. But it must be recognised that it is a leap of faith not found anywhere else in human life.

There is nothing wrong with having faith in God, it is an intensely personal thing, bringing both benefits and disadvantages. But it must be recognised that it is a leap of faith not found anywhere else in human life.

I'm glad that you see nowt wrong with having faith in Gods existance, I would of course though argue the other point you make here. I belive that most of what we know comes from leaps of faith, even our very real absolute scientific facts are not absolute but realitive, and so as all subjective facts have more in line with belifes not facts.

What colour is the sky? Can you objectivly prove that to me?

For example, science can investigate if "God answers prayers".

Which they have and found it has no effect.

*snip*There is nothing wrong with having faith in God, it is an intensely personal thing, bringing both benefits and disadvantages. But it must be recognised that it is a leap of faith not found anywhere else in human life.

Well said. I should add that not everyone can make that leap of faith. When confronted with a dark abyss, how many people will jump right in?

What I don't understand is that there are people who rather not have a flashlight to help them see better before they jump.

If we can't even trust a human being who has the power of a mere country, how do we trust a Supreme Being who has the power of (at least) the entire Universe?
I do not, actually.

Some people consider science offensive because it "tests" God, thereby revealing our lack of faith. For me though, I think it is impossible to truly believe something without a clear understanding of what it is.
That's what Galileo Galilei said... beware the Inquisition!

for all we know God could be a cosmic prankster who loves chocolate and cares very little about everything else.
Well, in this case, I might consider actually liking God.

Let's have elections for the office of God. Terms of 10 years. No re-election allowed, time to let other Gods in! Hooray for divine democracy!

I do not, actually.


That's what Galileo Galilei said... beware the Inquisition!


Well, in this case, I might consider actually liking God.

Let's have elections for the office of God. Terms of 10 years. No re-election allowed, time to let other Gods in! Hooray for divine democracy!

You'd actually give elected officials unlimited power over time, space, and the universe?

But what is Bush gets elected again?!

What colour is the sky? Can you objectivly prove that to me?

Yes. Take a glass prism with triangular section. Darken your room and let a small ray of light in. Place the prism so that it intercepts light. Photograph the spectrum. Repeat this measure at different times of the day. Confront the spectra.

Now you know the spectrum of the sky. That is, the colour. And say thanks to Sir Isaac Newton.

I'm glad that you see nowt wrong with having faith in Gods existance, I would of course though argue the other point you make here. I belive that most of what we know comes from leaps of faith, even our very real absolute scientific facts are not absolute but realitive, and so as all subjective facts have more in line with belifes not facts.

What colour is the sky? Can you objectivly prove that to me?

I can prove what wavelengths of light are seen by a sensor (e.g. a human eye) looking at the sky.
With sufficient understanding I could prove what it would look like in terms of electrical impulses in your brain.
How that translates into what you 'see' is relatively poorly understood, scientifically, and is at present more to do with philosophy than science.

You'd actually give elected officials unlimited power over time, space, and the universe?

But what is Bush gets elected again?!

Oh well, we'll have to provide some clause, like "you cannot wipe out those who didn't vote for you" or "you cannot slow time so your term lasts more"... anything can be arranged if we have a competent lawyer.

And I doubt that many people would vote for the shrub as God...

Science testing God? I don't think so. Science is only trying to understand more of His creation.

That was simply...amazing. Put like that, everything is taken into a new perspective (for me, at least).

I f you want to logicaly disprove God, the only recourse opne to you is to take a religions view of what God is, and then show logicaly any inconsitancies in this view. This does not really disprove Gods existance, but can show how one view or another of God is wrong.

It has been proven (by Immanuel Kant) that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of any god via logic. Logic and faith don't mix very well.

Oh well, we'll have to provide some clause, like "you cannot wipe out those who didn't vote for you" or "you cannot slow time so your term lasts more"... anything can be arranged if we have a competent lawyer.
I approve. *runs for God*

And I doubt that many people would vote for the shrub as God...

He got elected as President of the US twice, that's the closest thing to God you can be elected as.

I don't believe that science is testing God.

In addition, you don't have to be superior to anybody to test them.

The act of testing something necessitates the submission of the one being tested to the tester (testor?). Thus, the simple implication is that testing something requires, at some point at least, superiority over that which you are testing.

You obviously are not speaking of the biblical God, so what deity do you mean?
.

Then you know nothing, or near to it, of the Biblical God of Abraham, of Moses, and Joan of Arc (she's still a saint). And Jesus. But He and God are the same.

The act of testing something necessitates the submission of the one being tested to the tester (testor?). Thus, the simple implication is that testing something requires, at some point at least, superiority over that which you are testing.

Not necessarily. God could agree to be tested, which would not change the relative inferiority/superiority between god and the lucky scientist/s who got to run tests on it.

The act of testing something necessitates the submission of the one being tested to the tester (testor?). Thus, the simple implication is that testing something requires, at some point at least, superiority over that which you are testing.

This depends on whether you are speaking of testing as in testing how well a part fits tolerances, or testing in terms of taking a census of a population.
I am far superior to a machined part, but am inferior in everything except certain individual rights to the population of my country. And yet I could test both.

The act of testing something necessitates the submission of the one being tested to the tester (testor?). Thus, the simple implication is that testing something requires, at some point at least, superiority over that which you are testing.

Superiority is totally irrelevant in this context - is a scientist 'superior' to an electron when they test it's charge?

Not necessarily. God could agree to be tested, which would not change the relative inferiority/superiority between god and the lucky scientist/s who got to run tests on it.

Even if He agreed, the act of testing--of the testor performing tests on God--would place Him at the hands of a scientist, for the purpose of the tests, which would, effectually, grant superiority to the scientist over the submitting subject (ie, God).

Superiority is totally irrelevant in this context - is a scientist 'superior' to an electron when they test it's charge?

Absolutely.

we need to consider that the idea of god arises from a human need to believe there is something superior, something that can bring security in insecurity and doubt, humans cant explain certain thigs so they create some explanation, maybe God. God is a mere idea created by humanity.

I have a weird story about god being a cosmic prankster. One time it was raining pretty hard, and the wind was howling. I looked into the sky and yelled "IS THAT ALL YOU GOT" (I was really bored at the time)...30 seconds later, it started raining twice as hard, and the thunder started.

It was really weird.

Even if He agreed, the act of testing--of the testor performing tests on God--would place Him at the hands of a scientist, for the purpose of the tests, which would, effectually, grant superiority to the scientist over the submitting subject (ie, God).

Consider who has knowledge in this situation. God already knows himself, and is permitting a tester to learn a minuscule part of what God already knows.
That does not make the tester superior to God.

Even if He agreed, the act of testing--of the testor performing tests on God--would place Him at the hands of a scientist, for the purpose of the tests, which would, effectually, grant superiority to the scientist over the submitting subject (ie, God).

Notorious G.O.D.-"Sure, I'll let you throw that clipboard at me to see what happens"

Some Guy In A Lab Coat-"Couldn't you just magic it out of existence before it hit you?"

G.O.D.-"Sure, but what would you learn from that?"

Lab Coat-"How you magic things out of existence"

G.O.D-"........................Shut up and just throw the damn clipboard"

I have a weird story about god being a cosmic prankster. One time it was raining pretty hard, and the wind was howling. I looked into the sky and yelled "IS THAT ALL YOU GOT" (I was really bored at the time)...30 seconds later, it started raining twice as hard, and the thunder started.

It was really weird.

EVIDENCE! :p

*runs for God*

My vote is for Zineddine "Zizou" Zidane, even if I'm italian. Here's why:

1.He's got an athlete's body, so no risk of statues of an ugly, fat god.
2.He's French, so the French will be reassured of their "grandeur".
3.He's of Algerian descent, so the Islamic countries should agree.
4.He know how to use his HEAD!
:D

(clause IV: God cannot alter the results of the soccer World Cup, sorry)

Yes. Take a glass prism with triangular section. Darken your room and let a small ray of light in. Place the prism so that it intercepts light. Photograph the spectrum. Repeat this measure at different times of the day. Confront the spectra.

Now you know the spectrum of the sky. That is, the colour. And say thanks to Sir Isaac Newton.

Sooo what colour is the sky then?

Good experiment, though, heh a few thoughts pop into my head.

You say let in a small ray of light, I'll asume you mean daylight/natural light.
Photograph the spectrum, so then reomove your own eyes from the equation at this point for a machanical lense. Are you not placing your faith in the fact that the resulting image is going to have the same properties as your eyes? Are you sure at this point that the integrity of the data(spectrum) will not be comprimised by such a swap? You are trusting to too many veriables, and ones that are out of your control.

That's fine, though in life this happens, which is part of the reasoning behind my stance. You that is we, humanity, cannot be 100% certian of anything. There are too many veriables to take into account, and to be 100% certain means to be have 100% knowldge of 100% of the veriables.

This just does not happen, and so we all live our lives by placing faith in the things we belive in.

I am about 99% certian that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have seen it do so time and time and time and time again, from this I can infer that indeed the sun will rise tomorrow, I can't know this for certian, there will always be some room for doubt, but can state with certianty and without fear of contradiction that the sun will rise tomorrow, I can't prove it, but I have faith that it is so.

What, you mean you guys didn't hear about the great cherry bombing shortly before Christ was crucified?

Superiority is totally irrelevant in this context - is a scientist 'superior' to an electron when they test it's charge?

Hehe and it just goes to show that supierority is just as subjective as well most things. But in answer to your question, yes you are a superior scientist, in the above example, althought the electron will always be far superior to you in all the ways of being an electron.

we need to consider that the idea of god arises from a human need to believe there is something superior, something that can bring security in insecurity and doubt, humans cant explain certain thigs so they create some explanation, maybe God. God is a mere idea created by humanity.

Yes we can consider this idea, as long as we also consider the idea that God created us instead. Whacky I know, hehe i like whacky!;)

You say let in a small ray of light, I'll asume you mean daylight/natural light.
Photograph the spectrum, so then reomove your own eyes from the equation at this point for a machanical lense. Are you not placing your faith in the fact that the resulting image is going to have the same properties as your eyes? Are you sure at this point that the integrity of the data(spectrum) will not be comprimised by such a swap? You are trusting to too many veriables, and ones that are out of your control.

Yep, that's the concept of qualia for you. These properties, like "redness" or "pain", are indescribable because they are inherently subjective and so we can't really objectively observe them or compare them to those of others; what I see as red may look like my color blue to someone else. We both agree that the object is red, but ultimately we don't know exactly what that means for either of us.

Sooo what colour is the sky then?

Good experiment, though, heh a few thoughts pop into my head.

You say let in a small ray of light, I'll asume you mean daylight/natural light.
Photograph the spectrum, so then reomove your own eyes from the equation at this point for a machanical lense. Are you not placing your faith in the fact that the resulting image is going to have the same properties as your eyes? Are you sure at this point that the integrity of the data(spectrum) will not be comprimised by such a swap? You are trusting to too many veriables, and ones that are out of your control.

That's fine, though in life this happens, which is part of the reasoning behind my stance. You that is we, humanity, cannot be 100% certian of anything. There are too many veriables to take into account, and to be 100% certain means to be have 100% knowldge of 100% of the veriables.

This just does not happen, and so we all live our lives by placing faith in the things we belive in.

I am about 99% certian that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have seen it do so time and time and time and time again, from this I can infer that indeed the sun will rise tomorrow, I can't know this for certian, there will always be some room for doubt, but can state with certianty and without fear of contradiction that the sun will rise tomorrow, I can't prove it, but I have faith that it is so.

The reason science is so bloody hard is because everything involves hundreds of variables.
However, it is possible to make one factor dominate the result sufficiently to gain approximate results, which can then be used to refine the apparatus, and the ideas.

It then becomes an issue that for the sun to stop rising tomorrow would require a reason, as the earth will happily keep spinning until something (or a whole accumulation of somethings) stops it.
Absent a reason for the sun to stop fusing hydrogen atoms, or the earth to stop spinning, the only assumption is that the sun will rise tomorrow.

That requires no faith. It requires no faith to go with the only assumption for which there is evidence, only common sense.

I would in fact say it is a debasement of the word faith to use it in such a sense.

Yes we can consider this idea, as long as we also consider the idea that God created us instead. Whacky I know, hehe i like whacky!;)

Not really, there is no sensible reason to suppose the existence of a god so it makes no sense to consider it to the exclusion of other unlikely occurences. To use the sun coming up analogy - it makes sense to suppose the sun comes up tomorrow but it makes no sense to suppose that the sun will turn into a cabbage even if some people have faith that it will.

It then becomes an issue that for the sun to stop rising tomorrow would require a reason, as the earth will happily keep spinning until something (or a whole accumulation of somethings) stops it. Absent a reason for the sun to stop fusing hydrogen atoms, or the earth to stop spinning, the only assumption is that the sun will rise tomorrow.

That's why most things are determined in terms of probabilities rather than absolute causal statements; it's possible that those things will happen, but the probability is so infinitesimally small and the probability of things continuing as normal infinitesimally close to 100% that we can work with that assumption.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to do anything at any time because of the number of variables involved.

If there is not a God, then how did everything get here? We hear from scientist that the world started from the Big Bang. The Big Bang was caused and fueled by a compact bunch of materials that were very explosive. Tell, me this anyone. Where did those materials come from. The only thing that makes since is the existance of God.

Brainz! Wonderful article.

Not really, there is no sensible reason to suppose the existence of a god so it makes no sense to consider it to the exclusion of other unlikely occurences. To use the sun coming up analogy - it makes sense to suppose the sun comes up tomorrow but it makes no sense to suppose that the sun will turn into a cabbage even if some people have faith that it will.

Well, here's an interesting question: If everyone believes that the sun were a cabbage, and they had full faith that it was, would it appear to be a cabbage even though it is actually something completely different?

Or, if you believe with full faith that the sun is a cabbage, does it appear like one to you? Ultimately, is our perception of reality a product of our mind, or is our mind a product of our interaction with reality?

Yes we can consider this idea, as long as we also consider the idea that God created us instead. Whacky I know, hehe i like whacky!;)

Not so wacky - somehow three billion people believe it.

Because God said so in holy texts written by human beings.

I don't get it. :confused:

The reason science is so bloody hard is because everything involves hundreds of variables.
However, it is possible to make one factor dominate the result sufficiently to gain approximate results, which can then be used to refine the apparatus, and the ideas.

It then becomes an issue that for the sun to stop rising tomorrow would require a reason, as the earth will happily keep spinning until something (or a whole accumulation of somethings) stops it.
Absent a reason for the sun to stop fusing hydrogen atoms, or the earth to stop spinning, the only assumption is that the sun will rise tomorrow.

That requires no faith. It requires no faith to go with the only assumption for which there is evidence, only common sense.

I would in fact say it is a debasement of the word faith to use it in such a sense.

I note the use of the word assumption. So in effect you are agreeing with me? That although we can have evidance from which we can infer the most likely answer, this is not the same a proof, and thus an amount of faith that the evidance presented which indicates the most likey answer, does in fact correlate with what we may call truth, has to be used to come to our answer.

You would say that it is a desbasement of the word to use it in such a sense, I would say that it is the very meaning of the word.

Heh once again our differances amount to just a differant subjective understanding.

If there is not a God, then how did everything get here? We hear from scientist that the world started from the Big Bang. The Big Bang was caused and fueled by a compact bunch of materials that were very explosive. Tell, me this anyone. Where did those materials come from. The only thing that makes since is the existance of God.


You might just as well say 'where did God come from' the only thing that makes sense is science.

Brainz! Nice to see you on this forum, Z. Wonderful article.

Thanks! I was X but my nation died. :(

The upside is now my shiny new nation is at least pronounceable. :D

If there is not a God, then how did everything get here? We hear from scientist that the world started from the Big Bang. The Big Bang was caused and fueled by a compact bunch of materials that were very explosive. Tell, me this anyone. Where did those materials come from. The only thing that makes since is the existance of God.

The lack of a scientific explanation is not a requirement for God, as science is (and always will be) incomplete.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean God must have done it.
There are currently several partial explanations, but the capability to perform experiments to choose between them is not yet available.

If there is not a God, then how did everything get here? We hear from scientist that the world started from the Big Bang. The Big Bang was caused and fueled by a compact bunch of materials that were very explosive. Tell, me this anyone. Where did those materials come from. The only thing that makes since is the existance of God.

Before I begin: I do believe in a God, albeit one whose nature is a mystery to us (agnostic theism). However:

I think the answer to that question is ultimately impossible to answer in logical terms because it leads to two arguments that are generally seen as logically invalid:

1. Infinitism: The universe has always existed and has gone through repeated oscillations of Big Bangs and Gib Gnabs (Big Crunches, if you will). However, that isn't a valid argument because as a kind of knowledge, infinite regression is not justified

2. First Cause: Something created the universe, yet nothing created it. Obviously, if God is eternal this doesn't raise a complication, but either way it reduces to a form of infinitism and retains that epistemological flaw.

In other words, I think there is something behind all this, but its nature is inherently mysterious. As a result, our moral decisions should be based upon our own happiness as well as an ethical moral code; it hedges your bets in the event that there is a good God or no God, and if God is evil then it doesn't matter. You've improved your chances by at least 67%, so it's worth it.

That's why most things are determined in terms of probabilities rather than absolute causal statements; it's possible that those things will happen, but the probability is so infinitesimally small and the probability of things continuing as normal infinitesimally close to 100% that we can work with that assumption.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to do anything at any time because of the number of variables involved.
Probability itself, though, is really only an abstract way of looking at a system of causes that we cannot or do not fully model. Things do not really go wrong because there is a 0.01% chance of them doing so; they go wrong because something somewhere didn't do what we were expecting it to.

We don't naturally believe things because they are more likely. We believe them because of trends and the absence of any property or event within the observed system to cause a discontinuation of these trends. The difference is subtle, but important.

I note the use of the word assumption. So in effect you are agreeing with me? That although we can have evidance from which we can infer the most likely answer, this is not the same a proof, and thus an amount of faith that the evidance presented which indicates the most likey answer, does in fact correlate with what we may call truth, has to be used to come to our answer.

You would say that it is a desbasement of the word to use it in such a sense, I would say that it is the very meaning of the word.

Heh once again our differances amount to just a differant subjective understanding.

The only place that something can be proven utterly is in mathematics. The exponent of i times pi is minus 1 for all time.
Faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence" (OED).
It does not require complete trust or confidence to accept a 99.99% probability as true.

What can I say, I'm an engineer at heart, I'm used to working with the imprecise and uncertain, as long as the balance of probabilities is sufficient.
You make allowance for something being wrong, depending on the probability of it going wrong and the severity of such.

The probability of the sun not rising tomorrow is so tiny that making any allowance for it is worthless, meaning that we implicitly accept it will rise.

The only aspects conceivably requiring faith there are
1) causality
2) the scientific method
And I would consider both to be at a sufficiently probable level that making allowance for their being wrong is unnecessary, making them (to an engineering approximation) true.
No proof, or faith, required.

Probability itself, though, is really only an abstract way of looking at a system of causes that we cannot or do not fully model. Things do not really go wrong because there is a 0.01% chance of them doing so; they go wrong because something somewhere didn't do what we were expecting it to.

That's correct. Probability is a means of reconciling our concept of causality with the fact that we don't know or have control over all of the variables.

We don't naturally believe things because they are more likely. We believe them because of trends and the absence of any property or event within the observed system to cause a discontinuation of these trends. The difference is subtle, but important.

Well, we do believe that because it is more likely. If nothing contrary to the event in question has ever happened, we're going to believe that that event will happen next time just because it has happened every time before. In many ways, it's a justified form of the Gambler's Fallacy.

If we can't even trust a human being who has the power of a mere country, how do we trust a Supreme Being who has the power of (at least) the entire Universe?

Some people consider science offensive because it "tests" God, thereby revealing our lack of faith. For me though, I think it is impossible to truly believe something without a clear understanding of what it is.

This is why we need science (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/11/top-five-reasons-why-science-is-t3h.html); for all we know God could be a cosmic prankster who loves chocolate and cares very little about everything else.

I think that's a testable hypothesis ;)

Discovering the nature of God by testing hypotheses like "God only likes chocolate" is a very naive scientific approach. A bit like the PhD student who tested the "million monkeys with a million typewriters" hypothesis using actual monkeys and waterproofed laptops. Kind of funny, but not science.

Nah, some people consider science offensive because after years of trying to believe stuff without understanding it, it offends them to be asked to understand stuff (some of it the very same stuff) without believing it!

And those trained scientists who try to reconcile their science with their abiding faith, are actually agents of an alien conspiracy to make the feeble-minded humans give up on understanding or believing anything. "Produce! Babble nonsense! Live forever!" is their creed.

Not really, there is no sensible reason to suppose the existence of a god so it makes no sense to consider it to the exclusion of other unlikely occurences. To use the sun coming up analogy - it makes sense to suppose the sun comes up tomorrow but it makes no sense to suppose that the sun will turn into a cabbage even if some people have faith that it will.


I see your point, yes their is more evidance that the sun will rise tomorrow than there is that the sun will turn into a cabbage(brief aside: Scientist also belive that any bit of matter can pop into existance and out again at any time - we have not yet seen it but the belife is there) so that is what I choose to belive.

Evidance seems to be the byword here, given that we can view evidance differantly and thus reach differant conclusions, then it should come as no supprise that the majority who profess a belife in Gods existance do so not from 'blind faith' but from subjective evidance based faith.

what makes my subjective evidance based faith of any less worth than yours, why do you say that you are right when you don't really know.

My faith in God's existance is no differant from your faith in God's non existance, why then should my belife be ridiculed and yours not?

Sooo what colour is the sky then?
In the direction of the sun, yellow with a peak in intensity at 550 nm wavelength. Diurne diffuse light is blue (can be calculated via light diffraction and refraction inside water particles).

You say let in a small ray of light, I'll asume you mean daylight/natural light.

Correct. Eveny night sky. The colour of the sky changes in time.

Photograph the spectrum, so then reomove your own eyes from the equation at this point for a machanical lense. Are you not placing your faith in the fact that the resulting image is going to have the same properties as your eyes?
Clever remark, but no. I just remove temporarily my eyes from the experiment.
First, I fix the data on photographical film - a film is durable enough and the picture on it will not change during my experiments. Then, my eyes re-enter the experiment because I use them to look at the pictures I've taken throughout the experiments, and I also can show my results and the pictures to other people to make sure they see the same thing - so my results are objective, not subjective.

Are you sure at this point that the integrity of the data(spectrum) will not be comprimised by such a swap?
Yes. We can check it by projecting the picture (as a slide) using a blackbody with a peak at 550 nm.

You that is we, humanity, cannot be 100% certian of anything. This just does not happen, and so we all live our lives by placing faith in the things we belive in.

Of course we cannot be 100% certain, if we agree to Heisenberg's Uncertainity principle and to that thing about the maximum number of information bits that can be stored in our brains. Anyway, we can be (100-10^(-10))% certain... let's call that "practical maximum certainity".

... I can't prove it, but I have faith that it is so.
No. You don't have "faith". You "guess from experience". That is not "faith". And guesses based on experience usually are quite accurate: scientifical theories are built on experience.
Faith is totally different: you believe because you are told that things are like this, whitout any experience or proof. See St.Thomas...
I don't have "faith" in what scientists tell me: I go check myself, so I can have "experience". Of course, I can because I'm a physicist, most people will find difficult to set up some experiments, but hey, if it was easy, the history of human thought would have been totally different, don't you think?

Well, here's an interesting question: If everyone believes that the sun were a cabbage, and they had full faith that it was, would it appear to be a cabbage even though it is actually something completely different?

Or, if you believe with full faith that the sun is a cabbage, does it appear like one to you? Ultimately, is our perception of reality a product of our mind, or is our mind a product of our interaction with reality?


You are correct when you say ultimatly our perception of reality is ALL in our minds.

Not so wacky - somehow three billion people believe it.

Because God said so in holy texts written by human beings.

I don't get it. :confused:

Ahhhh that of course though is the big question, innit.

How many holy texts have come from God, how many from man, and how many that came from God have been bastardised by man?

Discovering the nature of God by testing hypotheses like "God only likes chocolate" is a very naive scientific approach. A bit like the PhD student who tested the "million monkeys with a million typewriters" hypothesis using actual monkeys and waterproofed laptops. Kind of funny, but not science.

Nah, some people consider science offensive because after years of trying to believe stuff without understanding it, it offends them to be asked to understand stuff (some of it the very same stuff) without believing it!

And those trained scientists who try to reconcile their science with their abiding faith, are actually agents of an alien conspiracy to make the feeble-minded humans give up on understanding or believing anything. "Produce! Babble nonsense! Live forever!" is their creed.

I don't quite follow... :confused:

You are correct when you say ultimatly our perception of reality is ALL in our minds.

I've always been interested in that concept, especially solipsism. It's one of the reasons why I don't believe that our mind is a product of physical states but instead physical states are a product of the mind.

Of course, the mind-brain problem remains unsolved in this situation.

I don't quite follow... :confused:

Excellent! My work here is done. :D

The only place that something can be proven utterly is in mathematics. The exponent of i times pi is minus 1 for all time.
Faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence" (OED).
It does not require complete trust or confidence to accept a 99.99% probability as true.

What can I say, I'm an engineer at heart, I'm used to working with the imprecise and uncertain, as long as the balance of probabilities is sufficient.
You make allowance for something being wrong, depending on the probability of it going wrong and the severity of such.

The probability of the sun not rising tomorrow is so tiny that making any allowance for it is worthless, meaning that we implicitly accept it will rise.

The only aspects conceivably requiring faith there are
1) causality
2) the scientific method
And I would consider both to be at a sufficiently probable level that making allowance for their being wrong is unnecessary, making them (to an engineering approximation) true.
No proof, or faith, required.

Faith is defined as 'belife without proof', nowhere have I seem a definition as 'complete trust'.

Ahhhh that of course though is the big question, innit.

How many holy texts have come from God, how many from man, and how many that came from God have been bastardised by man?

The holy texts say they come from God. Therefore they come from God.

God told me that he likes chocolates. Which must be true because God told me. ;)

Excellent! My work here is done. :D

*waves* :)

Faith is defined as 'belife without proof', nowhere have I seem a definition as 'complete trust'.

Oxford English Dictionary, which is the standard reference work for the English language as she stands.

Clever remark, but no. I just remove temporarily my eyes from the experiment.
First, I fix the data on photographical film - a film is durable enough and the picture on it will not change during my experiments. Then, my eyes re-enter the experiment because I use them to look at the pictures I've taken throughout the experiments, and I also can show my results and the pictures to other people to make sure they see the same thing - so my results are objective, not subjective.

Heh why thanks, Yes I understand that you go back to using your eyes, what I mean though is can you be 100% certian that what you first saw with your eyes, and is now fixed onto the film, is in fact the same data? Can you garentee that the data has not changed in any way?



No. You don't have "faith". You "guess from experience". That is not "faith". And guesses based on experience usually are quite accurate: scientifical theories are built on experience.

I guess here we disagree then, gues from experiances is to my mind another way of saying based on evidance. I have already talked about how eviance is not proof, and belife without proof is faith. So belife basedon guessed at based on experiance is still faith. If I have guessed that God must exist based on my experiances, this is still faith.


Faith is totally different: you believe because you are told that things are like this, whitout any experience or proof. See St.Thomas...
I don't have "faith" in what scientists tell me: I go check myself, so I can have "experience". Of course, I can because I'm a physicist, most people will find difficult to set up some experiments, but hey, if it was easy, the history of human thought would have been totally different, don't you think?

You can't know that, you just cannot know how and why I belive, that statement of yours is definatly highly subjective.

It may be that in your experiance those of the religous bent are so because their mum and dads where. Personly I too like to experiance before I buy, so to speak. And as I have said in a previous post most of the religous people I know are so because of subjective evidanced based faith.

My faith in God's existance is no differant from your faith in God's non existance, why then should my belife be ridiculed and yours not?

My belief that there is no god is based on there being no evidence that one exists and there being no rational reason to suppose one does - you believe in god despite the lack of evidence or rational reason to suppose one exists (without even getting into why any one 'god' that people come up with is more likely to be real than any of the others). Hence it is rational not to believe in a god and irrational to belive in one.

To test God implies that you are superior to God, which you arnt.

i am real. everyone in this world at least has some vague awareness of the fact i deffinitely exist. thus i am superior to god.

The only place that something can be proven utterly is in mathematics.

actually you can prove with maths that nothing can be proven exactly. every day i hate physics more and more. but i only recently started to hate it. the idea of doing maths for the rest of my life depresses me. i'm not trying to take the piss out of monty python, but i wish i was a lumberjack.

The act of testing something necessitates the submission of the one being tested to the tester (testor?). Thus, the simple implication is that testing something requires, at some point at least, superiority over that which you are testing.
Not a chance.

I can test the theory of gravity without in any way assuming I am "superior" to gravity. I don't even know how you would measure my relative "value" compared to gravity, quite frankly, since we are such radically different things.

A good scientist will never assume "superiority" over something they are investigating or testing. I am not superior to the embryos that I disect, nor am I superior to the vestibular neurons that I label with antibodies and fluorescent probes. I am not superior to the reflex pathways that are the focus of my research (indeed, without these pathways I would be unable to move and function!).

The fact that I study something critically, or that I test a theory empirically, does not in any way require that I view myself as superior to the subject of my experiments. The only assumption that is required is the assumption that the subject CAN be tested or studied, and that I am capable of performing such a test or study.

When it comes to testing God, we are talking about the supernatural. By definition, there is no natural means of testing a supernatural being or force, therefore I am unable to perform such a test. This doesn't make me "inferior" or make God "superior," it just reflects a limitation of the universe.

I am not superior to the embryos

interesting.

actually you can prove with maths that nothing can be proven exactly. every day i hate physics more and more. but i only recently started to hate it. the idea of doing maths for the rest of my life depresses me. i'm not trying to take the piss out of monty python, but i wish i was a lumberjack.

Meh, I'm an engineer, something like e to the i pi equals minus one is good enough for me.

My belief that there is no god is based on there being no evidence that one exists and there being no rational reason to suppose one does - you believe in god despite the lack of evidence or rational reason to suppose one exists (without even getting into why any one 'god' that people come up with is more likely to be real than any of the others). Hence it is rational not to believe in a god and irrational to belive in one.

But that's just not true, your non belife is based upon the lack of subjective faith based evidance that you find, or don't find perhaps. Whilst my belife is based on the subjective faith based evidance that I have found.

I have been talking about certianties and degree's of certianty, the only differance between our stances is the level of certianty which we are comfatable using.

Another example, you use two words rational and irrational meaning, based on reasoned thought or unreasoned thought. Can we agree on these definitions?

Disregarding for a moment that all belifes are rationalised somehow, even the clearly mad ones.

To be able to use these words with any sort of chutzpah though means we have to know what are the normal parameters of the working brain and what are not. Now I don't pretend to know the differances between both, seeing as every concivable meassurement that I can think of is highly subjective anyway, but can you tell me for sure that a belife in God is not within the normal working parameters of the brain?

So just how certian are you that belief in God is irrational, or do you just belive it to be?

Oxford English Dictionary, which is the standard reference work for the English language as she stands.


You are quite correct, I have just checked and that is exactly what it says. Well I never!

Meh, I'm an engineer, something like e to the i pi equals minus one is good enough for me.


Hehe sounds like some sorta maths rap!

In that case can we agree, using that definition of faith, that faith in god is something separate from accepting for the sake of a sane life that observations can be accurate?

I'm sure god knew that humanity would use science and manipulate it, I don't think he/she should get mad... :p

But that's just not true, your non belife is based upon the lack of subjective faith based evidance that you find, or don't find perhaps. Whilst my belife is based on the subjective faith based evidance that I have found.

I have been talking about certianties and degree's of certianty, the only differance between our stances is the level of certianty which we are comfatable using.

Another example, you use two words rational and irrational meaning, based on reasoned thought or unreasoned thought. Can we agree on these definitions?

Disregarding for a moment that all belifes are rationalised somehow, even the clearly mad ones.

To be able to use these words with any sort of chutzpah though means we have to know what are the normal parameters of the working brain and what are not. Now I don't pretend to know the differances between both, seeing as every concivable meassurement that I can think of is highly subjective anyway, but can you tell me for sure that a belife in God is not within the normal working parameters of the brain?

So just how certian are you that belief in God is irrational, or do you just belive it to be?

I am talking about empirical evidence - I have no idea what "subjective faith based evidence" is - why don't you present some?

In that case can we agree, using that definition of faith, that faith in god is something separate from accepting for the sake of a sane life that observations can be accurate?


Not sure that I can agree with this one, let me ponder upon it. The thing is you see that I know and I'm sure that you do, that observations can be acurate, and then again there is every chance that they are not.

If our view of the world is down to genetic disposition, upbringing and experiances then there is a high chance of two people viewing the same thing both reporting differances. Perhaps not in what was observed directly but, what they focused on, or what they deemed important, biased by their view of the world.

Yet to suggest that the sun will not rise tomorrow after reapeted observations of it doing just that, does seem(even to my twisted mind) to be on the ludicrus side.

Yet again I well know that there are things around that have no scientific explaination.

I think for know, unless persuaded otherwise, I'm gonna have to say no I can't agree with that, the reason being that I have experiance of differing perceptions between people and have seen that what you suggest is not always the case.

interesting.
Why do you find that more interesting than the fact that I am not superior to neurons or reflex pathways? Is it that unusual for you to consider the possibility that chicken eggs are not "inferior" to humans?

I'm honestly confused by this entire hierarchical system. I don't see any reason to view life forms or phenomena as "superior" or "inferior" to other life forms or phenomena, because those terms are subjective value judgments which do not provide any helpful information.

I am talking about empirical evidence - I have no idea what "subjective faith based evidence" is - why don't you present some?

Heh have you read none of my posts then?

This is the very thing I'm trying to tell you. You say empircal evidance, or evidance based on repeated observation, and verifiable by experiment or observation?

I posit that even this evidance is subjective, if in the least way it is realtive to our human senses. Consider do we have all the sense facialties to enable us to sense all that is around us? How would a dog scientist, or a fly scientist answer the colour of the sky question? Or would what is the smell or taste of the sky like be more importants to them?

Subjective - Data alters depending on the view of the subject.
Faith - Belief without proof.
Evidance - Grounds for belife

subjective based evidance, data that sows the seed of personal belief, 'I have proved to myself, to my own satisfaction, that indeed porridge is better than ready brek'

H
I posit that even this evidance is subjective, if in the least way it is realtive to our human senses. Consider do we have all the sense facialties to enable us to sense all that is around us? How would a dog scientist, or a fly scientist answer the colour of the sky question? Or would what is the smell or taste of the sky like be more importants to them?

This is the classic question of, "If a tree fell in the woods and nobody was around, would it make a sound?"

The answer is that the "evidence," the displacement of air and shifts in pressure generated by the falling of the tree, would still be there even if there were no auditory receptors around to receive them.

A dog's auditory system can receive and process information that the human auditory system cannot. However, that information is still there, even if we cannot perceive it. It's not like other frequencies of sound magically spring into existence when a dog comes into the room; those frequencies were there anyhow, we just didn't pick them up.

A dog will likely perceive the sky differently than a human, because our visual senses are different. Our receptors don't process information the exact same way, and there are elements we can evaluate which a dog cannot (and vice versa). Neither humans nor dogs are capable of visually perceiving the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum, so there are elements of the sky's "color" which neither a human nor a dog will perceive.

Long story short:

It's not the "evidence" that is subjective, it's our perceptions of the evidence. Unless you want to get into The Uncertainty Principle, in which case we're going to all have to have a few drinks before I'm ready to continue.


Subjective - Data alters depending on the view of the subject.
Faith - Belief without proof.

Belief without EVIDENCE is different than belief without PROOF. In science, pretty much nothing is ever proven, but this is different from the concept of faith.

To test God implies that you are superior to God, which you arnt.

Prove it.

Prove it.
Superiority demands a well-ordered relation. There is no such relation between yourself and either the physical entity God or the conceptual entity God.

Consider who has knowledge in this situation. God already knows himself, and is permitting a tester to learn a minuscule part of what God already knows.
That does not make the tester superior to God.

In the context of the test, of there being a tester and one being tested, it does, in this context, create an artificial superiority to the extent of the test.

EDIT: I am not saying that it is possible for humans to be greater or superior in any to God. It is impossible. He's God. We're human. Which is exactly why God should not be tested--we would never be able to effectively accomplish any such thing, as we would not be able to gain any semblance of control over the subject, trials, or other experimental aspects of said test.

I ask the question, how can you look at science and not have faith in the Lord, the almighty creator of all?!
That's my question, too. The more I know and understand in biology, the more it amazes and humbles me. I consider myself a man of science, at the same time filled with awe at His creation.
WELL SAID!!!
Thanks. ;)
That was simply...amazing. Put like that, everything is taken into a new perspective (for me, at least).
Glad I could be of help. :p
I've always figured that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Why do you find that more interesting than the fact that I am not superior to neurons or reflex pathways? Is it that unusual for you to consider the possibility that chicken eggs are not "inferior" to humans?

I'm honestly confused by this entire hierarchical system. I don't see any reason to view life forms or phenomena as "superior" or "inferior" to other life forms or phenomena, because those terms are subjective value judgments which do not provide any helpful information.

you did not mention it was chicken. you just said embryo. i consider myself to be above chickens. on the basis i eat them. i'm also superior to most people.

Not a chance.

I can test the theory of gravity without in any way assuming I am "superior" to gravity. I don't even know how you would measure my relative "value" compared to gravity, quite frankly, since we are such radically different things.

A good scientist will never assume "superiority" over something they are investigating or testing. I am not superior to the embryos that I disect, nor am I superior to the vestibular neurons that I label with antibodies and fluorescent probes. I am not superior to the reflex pathways that are the focus of my research (indeed, without these pathways I would be unable to move and function!).

The fact that I study something critically, or that I test a theory empirically, does not in any way require that I view myself as superior to the subject of my experiments. The only assumption that is required is the assumption that the subject CAN be tested or studied, and that I am capable of performing such a test or study.

When it comes to testing God, we are talking about the supernatural. By definition, there is no natural means of testing a supernatural being or force, therefore I am unable to perform such a test. This doesn't make me "inferior" or make God "superior," it just reflects a limitation of the universe.

It's not a question of viewing yourself as superior. Frankly, you can think you are inferior. But it doesn't change the fact that as you are testing something, you assume a superior status. Otherwise, you would be unable to test it. It's a subtle, artificial institution of superiority that cannot be displaced. At any time you test something, you become superior to it for the purpose and extent of the test. That's it. No more, no less. Just during the test, as long as you control the means to test, and use them, you are superior, BUT only insofar as the test is concerned. Beyond that, you bet gravity will beat you down.

And again, I don't believe it is possible to test God, nor should we try, but don't fight the hypothetical.

It's not a question of viewing yourself as superior. Frankly, you can think you are inferior. But it doesn't change the fact that as you are testing something, you assume a superior status. Otherwise, you would be unable to test it. It's a subtle, artificial institution of superiority that cannot be displaced. At any time you test something, you become superior to it for the purpose and extent of the test. That's it. No more, no less. Just during the test, as long as you control the means to test, and use them, you are superior, BUT only insofar as the test is concerned. Beyond that, you bet gravity will beat you down.*snip*

This paragraph is what we scientists call a "word game".

*Makes quotation marks with fingers*

Heh have you read none of my posts then?

This is the very thing I'm trying to tell you. You say empircal evidance, or evidance based on repeated observation, and verifiable by experiment or observation?

I posit that even this evidance is subjective, if in the least way it is realtive to our human senses. Consider do we have all the sense facialties to enable us to sense all that is around us? How would a dog scientist, or a fly scientist answer the colour of the sky question? Or would what is the smell or taste of the sky like be more importants to them?

Subjective - Data alters depending on the view of the subject.
Faith - Belief without proof.
Evidance - Grounds for belife

subjective based evidance, data that sows the seed of personal belief, 'I have proved to myself, to my own satisfaction, that indeed porridge is better than ready brek'


Hilarious, and utter tosh. No point even trying to discuss anything with someone who distorts logic so much. What does the sky smell like to a dog? what kind of a rebuttal is that - 'I can say anything is right because I deny that such a thing as evidence exists". You need to read a bit more widely than Behe and the Bible, it might improve you spelling as well as your logic.

Surely a human being is superior to an imaginary being created by humans?
Surely, you will have immense difficulty proving your premise? :p

If we can't even trust a human being who has the power of a mere country, how do we trust a Supreme Being who has the power of (at least) the entire Universe?

Some people consider science offensive because it "tests" God, thereby revealing our lack of faith. For me though, I think it is impossible to truly believe something without a clear understanding of what it is.

This is why we need science - for all we know God could be a cosmic prankster who loves chocolate and cares very little about everything else.

Here is my detailed article (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/11/top-five-reasons-why-science-is-t3h.html) on why science is cool.

erm, I kind of consider trusting "god" a bit of a moot point. you can trust gravity, it's pretty well constant and dependable. water flows downhill because gravity causes it to do so, that's not because gravity "wills" water to flow downhill. you don't need to have faith in gravity. god does certain things, but I think its highly comparable to gravity. I do believe in miracles, but I think it's almost the same thing as a trickle of water running downhill. occasionally it will push a leaf or something out of its path, but only when it meets resistance and there's no easier path. mostly it does things by carrying away the most minute particles - almost accidentally. I think that's how god acts. it (it is a much better word than "he") pulls things towards, as origen would call it, Apokatostasis - that is, the reunification of all things with God - rather like a physical mass exerts a gravitational pull. I consider god a bit of a psycho/spiritual mass, which pulls all things towards it. occasionally when one bit of matter is obstructing the flow towards apokatostatis, a "miracle" occurs, but considering the nature of physical reality (all particles of matter are constantly disappearing and reappearing, and are all part of one gigantic energetic mass to begin with), a slight altering of it really isn't that big a deal. to say anything happens because the psycho-spiritual mass we identify as "god" (I'd say it's more correctly identified as Atman) desires it to is absurd. the sun does not *desire* for planets to orbit around it, but it exerts a pull and they do. in the normal flow of events, there are no explosions or collisions or anything, but when something weird happens, gravity will most definately still act, and things will keep moving towards it. I don't see why the existance of atman has to conflict with science at all.

---

incidentally, you can test gravity, and you can test god. of course, I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Gideon is a notable example (though I don't necessarily believe his story ever happened, though it could've) - he tested god downright scientifically for an iron-age semetic tribesman. then again, so did jonah, but jonah didn't come out so well. oh well.

Hilarious, and utter tosh. No point even trying to discuss anything with someone who distorts logic so much. What does the sky smell like to a dog? what kind of a rebuttal is that - 'I can say anything is right because I deny that such a thing as evidence exists". You need to read a bit more widely than Behe and the Bible, it might improve you spelling as well as your logic.

Sorry did I read that right? Let me get this straight, so we start talking about evidance and beleif, you state that only emperical evidance is worth looking at, I suggest that even this kind of evidance is subjective, and as an example I ask you to consider the differances between human, dog, and fly science based upon their differant senses. The point being that as we get our sciences from our human sense, so them must our sciences be realtive to humanity.

Thats right so far yeah?

And you say all the crap quoted, then chuck in lets see, ohh I count a total of 5 personal attacks. Some info for ya, I'm not a Christian, I don't know what you mena by behe, and my spelling will never get better so there is nowt I can do on that score.

As to my supposed quote 'I can say anything is right because I deny that such a thing as evidence exists' I was talking about evidance(not proof) and how it is subjective, where does this suggest I said that evidance does not exist?

This is the classic question of, "If a tree fell in the woods and nobody was around, would it make a sound?"

The answer is that the "evidence," the displacement of air and shifts in pressure generated by the falling of the tree, would still be there even if there were no auditory receptors around to receive them.

A dog's auditory system can receive and process information that the human auditory system cannot. However, that information is still there, even if we cannot perceive it. It's not like other frequencies of sound magically spring into existence when a dog comes into the room; those frequencies were there anyhow, we just didn't pick them up.

A dog will likely perceive the sky differently than a human, because our visual senses are different. Our receptors don't process information the exact same way, and there are elements we can evaluate which a dog cannot (and vice versa). Neither humans nor dogs are capable of visually perceiving the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum, so there are elements of the sky's "color" which neither a human nor a dog will perceive.

Long story short:

It's not the "evidence" that is subjective, it's our perceptions of the evidence. Unless you want to get into The Uncertainty Principle, in which case we're going to all have to have a few drinks before I'm ready to continue.


Belief without EVIDENCE is different than belief without PROOF. In science, pretty much nothing is ever proven, but this is different from the concept of faith.


Hey Bottle,


You are of course right the differances in dogs senses and humans senses, and I also make you right when you say that it is perception of evidance that is subjective.

How we view the world, and what we belive to be true is down to the evidance that we have and what we can infer from this yes?

In which case if two people see the same evidane, yet percive it in differant ways, then the inferances, and the knowlege gleaned for this evidance is likely not to match each other yes?

If so how do we distinguise between which one is right and which one is wrong? Can we claim they are both correct(seeing as to a degree the world that we percive is all in our heads) or must one be correct and one wrong?

This paragraph is what we scientists call a "word game".

*Makes quotation marks with fingers*

Yeah. It's fun.

Hey Bottle,

You are of course right the differances in dogs senses and humans senses, and I also make you right when you say that it is perception of evidance that is subjective.

How we view the world, and what we belive to be true is down to the evidance that we have and what we can infer from this yes?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that our world-view is based on the information we receive and also on how we choose to evaluate that information. I'd agree with that.


In which case if two people see the same evidane, yet percive it in differant ways, then the inferances, and the knowlege gleaned for this evidance is likely not to match each other yes?

Yes, if people perceive a given thing differently then they are likely to reach different conclusions about it. It's like that old bit about the three blind men who are each feeling a different part of the elephant; the one who feels the trunk reaches very different conclusions about the beast than the one who is feeling the elephant's ear.


If so how do we distinguise between which one is right and which one is wrong? Can we claim they are both correct(seeing as to a degree the world that we percive is all in our heads) or must one be correct and one wrong?In my opinion, the best thing for all people to do is to gather more information. The more information you have, the better able you are to make sound judgments about the world around you.

Because of the limitations of our physical form, we will not ever be able to have all the information. We're finite beings, and that's the price we pay. :D

However, we can still improve upon our starting point. There may be limitations to what human beings can know and understand, but those limitations are set far above where most of us begin our lives. We can at least strive to reach a better level of understanding, even if we must also recognize that our best will still be rather limited.

As for deciding what is "right" versus what is "wrong," I'd say it depends upon the subject. Some things are purely subjective (emotion, morality, etc.), while other things are accessable to empirical, objective evaluation (i.e. is there a chair in this room, or not?). Things which are objectively accessable can be examined and tested using methods that all can share in.

If I claim that there is an elephant in your driveway, there are empirical and objective means of testing my claim and evaluating whether or not I am right. If, however, I claim your driveway is ugly, there's really no way to empirically test that because I'm making a subjective statement.

It's not a question of viewing yourself as superior. Frankly, you can think you are inferior. But it doesn't change the fact that as you are testing something, you assume a superior status.

No, you really don't. Being subject to examination does not make something inferior. Being critically evaluated doesn't make something inferior. Unless, of course, you assume that examination and critical thinking are somehow dirty or nasty things that we inflict on hapless victims. (Which, obviously, I do not think.)


Otherwise, you would be unable to test it.

I don't have to be superior to something to test it. I don't need to assume a position of superiority in order to test something (or someone).

I can administer a physical examination to an athelete who is physically superior to me in any number of ways. I can administer an IQ test to a person who is smarter than I am. I can examine a painting by an artist whose gifts far surpass any I might possess. I am not in any way assuming a position of superiority if I do these things.


It's a subtle, artificial institution of superiority that cannot be displaced. At any time you test something, you become superior to it for the purpose and extent of the test. That's it. No more, no less. Just during the test, as long as you control the means to test, and use them, you are superior, BUT only insofar as the test is concerned. Beyond that, you bet gravity will beat you down.

All you've done is state that this is so. I've yet to see you provide any basis for your conclusion that one must be superior in order to test something. I'm honestly curious about what you are basing this on, so could you please explain? Simply saying, "That's how it works" doesn't really help me.

Yeah. It's fun.

Word games are "fun"!

*makes quotation marks with fingers*

Word games are "fun"!

*makes quotation marks with fingers*
Making "quotation marks" with your "fingers" is "fun."

*makes quotation marks with fingers*