Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Tell us why we don't believe in God
![[TI] Primo](https://imperialconflict.com/forum/img/avatars/711.jpg)
And avo, the thing about science is that it has been proven to be true. And if you want, you can do a couple of experiments, and find out for yourself. God has never been proven to be anywhere but in the human mind.
> [TI] Primo wrote:
> And avo, the thing about science is that it has been proven to be true. And if you want, you can do a couple of experiments, and find out for yourself. God has never been proven to be anywhere but in the human mind.
Primo are you ever sick of acting like a retard? first its not proven, because you cant prove the integrity of people's senses. 2nd, everyone knows about the scientific method and the lack of it in religion, do you honestly think you're bringing up a valid point? what are you? 5?
Maybe you should be asking who is bringing up a pointless argument...
try reading the name of the author of this thread. that guy.
and for us humans, the information we get through our senses is regarded as real, unless it has been proven not to be, once again, through our senses. The only thing that's real, is what's real to us.
You are trying to mimic Sastre with your arguments, but 'Je pense, donc je suis' has been ridiculed by other philosophers for ages.
Remove the penises from your pants and smack each other in the face
ffs. It'll probably still be more productive and intelligent then this thread...
"You are trying to mimic Sastre with your arguments, but 'Je pense, donc je suis' has been ridiculed by other philosophers for ages."
nah, i've actually never heard of the guy or "Je pense, donc je suis"
"and for us humans, the information we get through our senses is regarded as real, unless it has been proven not to be, once again, through our senses. The only thing that's real, is what's real to us."
if reality is defined as how our brains interpret the messages sent by our senses, then there is no such thing as hallucinations and there is no single reality but infinite realities and the existence or non-existence of God in your reality is dependent on your interpretation of events in your life.. also, you said everything we get trhough our senses is regarded as real, unless it has been proven not to be; but how can you prove what you sense is false when you have to rely on your senses... at best you can prove a contradiction between two events without knowing which is true or false...
if something is equally so for all (or at least a representable group of) human beings, this is considered to be real for us. The question if our senses are deceiving us is not quite as important.
If humans agree something is blue, it is blue. A man-given property to an object. All words in any human language have been created to fullfill a property. All words have a definition. They may in- or decrease in size, but that is not relevant.
look up the word "reality" in a dictionary before you start making theories based on assumptions about it's definition.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality :
5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
You can have your own opinion about "what is real" , but this is what most people mean when they use the word "reality". Your interpretation/definition is totally different.
Let's take "Gravity" as an example. Like God, it's something that is "untouchable". It also started as an idea inside the mind before it was generally accepted as "real". Science proves gravity exist(i think everyone agrees on this). It hasn't proven the existence of God. If you apply the definition of what is real from the dictionary, science can prove what is real and what isn't.
Science searches for general/universal laws and truths, and tries to prove them. According to the definition, these general laws are "real" if proven. Most sciences have very little to do with how we percieve the world, they look for realities outside our mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(to stay somewhat on topic)Science hasn't proven that god does or doesn't exist (yet), but scientific discoveries have proven religion wrong a couple of times though. It makes religion very questionable if not unlikely.
what qualifies as a representable group of human beings? there are large groups of people with fundamental beliefs in reality? also, how can we know anything is equal for more humans when we dont know if our senses are flawed or not. we dont know for sure whether anything exists outside of our minds and a stimulus let alone whether there is a mass of people believing in it. does that mean all i have to do is imagine that a large group of people believe what i believe and that makes what i believe real because a large group of people i have no idea whether truly exists believe it?
> SOL wrote:
> l
Let's take "Gravity" as an example. Like God, it's something that is "untouchable". It also started as an idea inside the mind before it was generally accepted as "real". Science proves gravity exist(i think everyone agrees on this). It hasn't proven the existence of God. If you apply the definition of what is real from the dictionary, science can prove what is real and what isn't.
science is unable to prove anything is real in the philosophical sense you're using because science is a construct of the human mind and they are unable to prove anything is independent of the human mind... you can make experiments to try to prove any idea in science and the only thing is proving is your brain is receiving stimulus that it interprets as creating the desired result, it proves nothing about anything independent of human thought...
Well Popper's falsification theory says that verificaiton doesn't provide 100% certanty. This vision is applied in the scientific paradigm of this day and age. So i understand why you say that science can't fully prove something to be real. Even if we can verify a scientific theory , it doesn't mean the theory is correct.
That would also mean we can't be a 100% certain that gravity really exists, but it can prove that general laws apply and exist outside the human mind. You can say that the theory might not be correct, but science has proven that general laws apply in certain conditions(=variables).
If we drop a rock, it will fall at a certain speed. It'll do that today, tomorow , in 1000 years (given the same conditions)
Wheter we think it will float or fall or whatever.... science tells us it will fall no matter what we think. It will move from the dropping point towards the gravitation point(or whatever) untill it hits other solid matter. Depending on the material/size it will move/fall at a certain speed.
wheter you call it moving/falling/.. (however you want to percieve it). It will always do the same thing. no matter what you think it's doing, no matter you call what it's doing, it will do what it does.
", but it can prove that general laws apply and exist outside the human mind."
how can you prove general laws apply and exist outside the human mind? we know nothing outside of the our own mind, everything we believe is based on how your mind interprets stimulus, and because we know nothing of reality outside our mind, we cannot know anything outside of our mind with any degree of certainty... imagine having 1 person describe a building to you. you dont know anything about the person, he's a stranger to you. you have no degree of certainty that anything he tells you about the building is true, it could be completely false, there could be some remnants of truth, it could all be true; thats us and the senses our brain interprets, they're strangers that we completely rely on and often contradict themselves, but is our only source of information about "reality".
also, i think the current scientific theory is objects dont fall because of gravity, they are pushed... could be wrong on that..
If that is the case, avo, then what is the point of you posting here, as there is no way you can be sure we actually exist. You can not confirm anything you do, any thing you sense is actually there, so the only thing left for you to so is sit in a corner somewhere and wait to die.
wheter the object is pushed , or it falls down ... we know it will always move from point A to point B(given the same conditions). Your brain&eyes might interpret it as falling, while in realilty it may be pushed. The fact(read: reality) that it'll move is a general law outside our mind, no matter how we interpret it ... is it not? It'll do that no matter what(given that the variables/conditions are the same)
I'm not a 100% sure science has the actual proof that it will always be like that(because i haven't indulged myself that deeply into science), but it definitly helps us understand/discover these universal laws are out there, outside our mind, no matter how we interpret them.
i have some reading to catch up on i see... i'll catch up after i get home. but for now...
primo wrote:
"If you ask me, god has been created by humans rather than the other way around, but that does not mean he's not there, because the fact people change their behaviour for him kinda of means he is."
that is the most solid argument i have ever heard for the existence of god! you did not use any religious defense, you used reason and logic. good job 
"
keeping things simple is offen the best way to get through to the masses!
avo wrote:
"science is unable to prove anything is real in the philosophical sense you're using because science is a construct of the human mind and they are unable to prove anything is independent of the human mind... you can make experiments to try to prove any idea in science and the only thing is proving is your brain is receiving stimulus that it interprets as creating the desired result, it proves nothing about anything independent of human thought..."
isn't that the same logic i can use to say "god doesn't exist"?
avo wrote:
"how can you prove general laws apply and exist outside the human mind? we know nothing outside of the our own mind, everything we believe is based on how your mind interprets stimulus, and because we know nothing of reality outside our mind, we cannot know anything outside of our mind with any degree of certainty... imagine having 1 person describe a building to you. you dont know anything about the person, he's a stranger to you. you have no degree of certainty that anything he tells you about the building is true, it could be completely false, there could be some remnants of truth, it could all be true; thats us and the senses our brain interprets, they're strangers that we completely rely on and often contradict themselves, but is our only source of information about "reality". "
no matter how we interpret our senses, scienctific law is to be considered "outside" the human mind. ever hear the phrase 'if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound?" well through scientific observations, sound waves have been proven to exist with and without us being present. We now have you(and many others) that tries to use our perception of reality to discredit science as a useful tool to assist human curiousity. this has long been religions only defense against the impending doom science poses on religion. it has been said that if it weren't for religion, humans may have entered the indutrial age in 300b.c., though i dont believe this to be true, it does provide evidence that man has been questioning the authenticity of the religious institutions for a long time. your argument is nothing new, its merely the simple defense religion has, to aviod the scientific destruction of human concepts of any deity. if you die tomorrow, the world will still turn, i will still be hungover from new years eve and IC will still be online.
most of all, by discrediting human perception of reality, you are just talking out of your ass to back up your agenda... in fact, using a religious argument, man was made in gods' image right??? so does this mean god has a faulty perception of reality too? human being are the most beautiful species ever! it doesn't take a rocket scientist, just look into the eyes of a newborn baby! or even watch a 3 year old boy learn and react to his envirionment. these fundimental human behaviors are just as beautiful as science... if i were you, i would create the argument saying "god made science" it will protect your faith aswell as give honor to your own species.
That's not an arguement for the existence of god, that's a arguement to strenghten his opinion..... why he thinks his opinion is correct. It doesn't appear to be a very solid or logical one either.
It's not because people think "he is there" that he is there... People used to think the earth was flat, they also changed their behaviour because of it, that doesn't mean the flat world "is/was there".
"THE THOUGHT that he might be there IS THERE", and it(=the thought) has made a significant impact on mankind. I think he's confusing the thought with the fact(if that even exists). How can that be logical?
i think the logic may be that whether you believe in god or not, it would be redundant to think that a simple human point of view and speculation would be correct. the fact that we will never know is enough to say someone else is wrong. this may be part of the human condition, i'll ask my professor on monday and see what she thinks... but yes, SOL, your point is well taken.
> [TI] Primo wrote:
> If that is the case, avo, then what is the point of you posting here, as there is no way you can be sure we actually exist. You can not confirm anything you do, any thing you sense is actually there, so the only thing left for you to so is sit in a corner somewhere and wait to die.
because i live my life without feeling the need for things to be proven for me to beleive in them. while you atheists insist things must be proven and then live in an imaginary world where everything is proven when in reality it isnt proven...
"wheter the object is pushed , or it falls down ... we know it will always move from point A to point B"
no, we dont. we dont even know the object exists..
"our brain&eyes might interpret it as falling, while in realilty it may be pushed. The fact(read: reality) that it'll move is a general law outside our mind"
your brain interprets an electrical signal as it falling while in reality, the object might not exist or the object might be stationary..
"isn't that the same logic i can use to say "god doesn't exist"?"
no, its the same logic that you can use to say god hasnt been proven to exist. the logic doesnt prove anything other then the non-existence of proof of objects outside our mind...
"We now have you(and many others) that tries to use our perception of reality to discredit science as a useful tool to assist human curiousity. "
that is not my purpose at all, nothing i've said here discredits science and its usefulness to humanity. name one thing i've said.... i dare you...
"most of all, by discrediting human perception of reality, you are just talking out of your ass to back up your agenda... in fact, using a religious argument, man was made in gods' image right??? so does this mean god has a faulty perception of reality too?"
i never claimed that man has a faulty perception of reality.
this is getting quite old... no one can understand the very basic concept anyone that hits puberty should be able to understand...
my position is that the difference between religion and science is not that science requires everything to be proven, while religion doesnt; both rely heavily on things that cant be proven. im not saying gravity doesnt exist, im saying the beleif in gravity is unproven and is a concept thats been passed down through our generations, just like religion...
Then the general law is would be about how we interpret the signal. If event A happens given conditions B, then C will be the outcome.
let's say( 100% hypothetical)--> A*B=C
A*B --> the event(=A) given the conditions(=B) ||| (dropping a rock of Xkgs with a volume of Y (=A) , conditions like distance to the sun or whatever affects gravity are the same (=B) )
C--> the outcome ||| (it will move from point H to G at a certain speed, depending on the mass of the object and the gravitational conditions)
wheter A*B is the proces of actual movement, or the proces of how our brain percieves it doesn't really matter, does it? The fact/ the reality/ the general law is that outcome C will occur in case of event&conditions A*B. It can movement, it can be processing an electric signal, it can be anything, but we can be sure outcome C will occur. whatever you think is happening, no matter what you call it, it'll do just that.
If you use different inputs for the proces(A*B), let's say a rock with a different mass on the moon, you know the speed at wich it will move/fall(or whatever you think it does) witouth having to do the experiment, because you know/understand the general law(/fact/reality)
Wheter you think it's moving or it's stationary(or what our brain is making is think is happening), something is happening and it's following certain rules. that is the reality outside our the human mind.
The thing about the brain might sound a little confusing. My first sentence should clarify it though. The object doesn't have to exist(wich is irrational in my opinion), the reality would be that the general law applies to the way we percieve/think/interpret/....
@ehawk: "... the fact the we will never know is enough to say someone else is wrong. ...."
-->now this part makes no sense at all to me... you mind clarifying it?
SOL, you say it doesnt matter whether A*B is hypothetical or whatever because we know that C occurs because it, but how do we know C exists then?
hypothetical to make it easy to follow. theres a man he's in a large room, you cannot enter the room. you yourself cant make any observations about the inside of the room except through communication with the man who can travel into the room. he can walk in and out of the room by will. you can make up whatever scenario's you want for him to test out in the room but you will never be able to prove that he is carrying them out and you will never be able to tell if he's telling you the truth about the outcomes of the experiments... reality is the room, the man that goes into the room is your senses, and your mind is you, relying on data transferring between you and the man/senses...
You mean Schr
Yeah that's a very reliable source levitas. The guy who wrote that text is clearly not an idiot and knows perfectly how science works, he really did his homework before constructing his theory. (=sarcasm all the way)
That isn't even considered to be scientific at all.
well avo, i think comes down to whether or not not you think "everythinbg that is" is rational or not. Science does assume everything has a reason, and it has no proof of that. Thinking everything is rational is a philosophy just like your philosophy about humans not being able to tell what is real outside our mind is one. i must say i find your theory very irrational (it's just a opinion/belief, i know, but i prefer putting my money on rationality).
Science does have something in common with relegion in that aspect. The difference is that everyone can experience the scientific theories in the same way(everyone should be able to fly to moon if he has the popper equiment, everyone is subject to the universal laws). Science is based on empirical facts(verifiable experiences ), religion isn't verifiable (yet/at all/...).
The fact that everyone one of us is subjected to universal laws makes them(the laws) real outside our mind( or that's what i mean with "real outside our mind"). I think we are
Let me try and draw it:
(what you are saying)
Realitity box
__________
|
human (mind) <---(medium)----->Information given
| by the medium(our senses)
----------
(what i am saying)
Realilty box
_________________________
|
Human (mind) <-------->
| *universal laws
|
Human (mind) <-------->
|
...... <-------->
|
-------------------------
(combination of what we're saying)
Realilty box
_________________________
|
Human (mind) <----(medium)---->
| *universal laws
|
Human (mind) <----(medium----> info by medium
|
...... <---(medium)----->
|
-------------------------
No matter what the medium tells us, the laws apply to us and everything around us. No matter what the mediums tells us it is... it is. The fact that it is, makes it real and "it is being what it is" outside our mind. whatever we think it might be is irrelevant to us. Science discovers the relevant reality(not necesaraly the way it is inside the reality box). I must admit you can argue that it might not be the real reality(that lives inside the box), but it is still outside the human mind, and that is what science discovers.
*note: the universal law isn'ty necesarely inside the " reality box" you are talking about, but that doesn't mean it exists only inside the human mind
> SOL wrote:
> Yeah that's a very reliable source levitas. The guy who wrote that text is clearly not an idiot and knows perfectly how science works, he really did his homework before constructing his theory. (=sarcasm all the way)
That isn't even considered to be scientific at all.
It isn't meant to be serious, let alone scientific (They guy who wrote it actually holds a degree in physics by the way). Its meant to demonstrate that just because something can't be disproven, doesn't mean it should be accepted, and hiding behind the "You can't prove its not ..." statement is paper thin at best. His main point was that Intelligent Design not be taught in a scientific classroom. Science uses facts, Intelligent Design does not.
As far as wondering if I exist or not, cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am - Descartes). If I exist, its stands to reason that my surroundings exist. That's a good enough standard for me. If you are wondering yourself if you exist, then you exist.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Tell us why we don't believe in God
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.