Official Religious Debate Thread

[GSx_Major]

Why don't you prove how space and matter can exist? Until then...

It was a comment on how useless such a comment is.

[~Niko~]

Anyone who thinks that science is a lie is irremediably dumb.

Feel free to believe in any god, but the science will always be truth until the opposite is proved.

[N. Escalona]

I don't reject any of the Bible. I reject certain interpretations of the Bible. That means that for practical purposes I am rejecting the denotative meanings of many of the words in that section of Genesis. The bit describing the order of creation is probably not literally true, but instead a metaphorical representation of the truth. Why is this so hard for people to understand? We do it with every other piece of literature under the sun, but nooo, the Bible has to be taken literally.

I didn't realize even you considered the bible fiction. I would have thought it was a problem to just ignore (sorry, not interpret literally) such a large part, but I guess not. Of course you can't read a religious text like the back of a dvd. Also, 30 verses that specifically (used to base rituals on) just as a single metaphor, that sounds about right.

Geologist, that was enlightning. Thanks for taking the time to write all that.

Actually, yeah, I take some of the Bible as fiction. Because it's obviously fiction: Christ's parables are the best examples. That's not ignoring those passages, not in the slightest. Despite requiring a non-literal interpretation, these parables are pretty important in understanding God's relationship to man. I don't understand your last sentence here. This sentence no verb?

@Geologist:

That was a really good explanation, geologically anyway. But you still don't have proof that plate tectonics occurs. You're using a common-sense, "moral certainty" route where proof begins once the line of "reasonable doubt" has been crossed. The GPS data proves nothing because all the GPSs could have been broken and sending random data that just happened to fit your theory. Absurdly improbable, yes, but since plate tectonics could be total bullshit with extremely low probability, it's still not a proof.

[Espadon]

Earthquakes happen and we can see where the plates open up under the ocean.

Anyways you can invalidate science, but that just becomes an invalidation of human perception. After that, you can't say anything is anything, in which case you have no need to believe in God since it's bullshit the same as science is.

[GSx_Major]

This sentence no verb?

Ah, the difference a comma does. I'll rephrase, 30 verses in such detail.

[excruciator]

Then its a theory.  You guys seriously need to go back to 6th grade.

The scientific definition of a theory is a hypothesis that correctly explains most phenomena it tries to explain.

Which again is most likely or very likely to be correct.

And N.scalona
You seem to pick and choose what you believe. Kinda arbitrary.
So if there is a God and there is history to it, How can you reject certain part of that history? Who's to say that some part is fiction and some not?

[~Niko~]

Science is updated, religion no. What will you believe in?

[The Geologist]

That was a really good explanation, geologically anyway. But you still don't have proof that plate tectonics occurs. You're using a common-sense, "moral certainty" route where proof begins once the line of "reasonable doubt" has been crossed. The GPS data proves nothing because all the GPSs could have been broken and sending random data that just happened to fit your theory. Absurdly improbable, yes, but since plate tectonics could be total bulls**t with extremely low probability, it's still not a proof.

Don't know what else to tell ya.  We've imaged plates, seen plates moving, know the effects of their movement.  There's no doubt.  And GPS data isn't BS, thank you very much.  That's a foolish line of thought, thinking they "all could have been broken and sending random data".  Talk about an absurd hypothetical.  Even without GPS data, you can track the movement of plates.

If you want to cling to this idea that you can never prove anything, have fun.  In this case though, you've gravely mistaken.  The line of reasonable doubt was crossed long ago, and so much evidence has piled up since then that this idea is proven, hands down. 

[PANZERCATWAGON]

hypothetically - one day a god appears and show us that y is actually x

is that not possible

of course, the god wouldnt even need to appear, because y could already be x. science and religion states that y is y, and that is logical, but always ultimately it could be x

edit: oh and geologist - in your case plate tectonics is y

[The Geologist]

Hypotheticals don't really mean much without any evidence to back them up.

So no.  You could sit around all day and come up with "what if's", but it doesn't change a thing.  Really, all this fuss over a simple matter just to prove yourselves right is beginning to bewilder me.  People used to think the surface of the Earth was static and never shifted in position. 

That would be your y.

Now, we know we have x (plate tectonics).  It's really simple - we have plates and we know they move and shift position.  There's no debate, no other possibilities, no nothing.  It's happening right now, as we speak.

FFS, just because you guys can say "what if" doesn't mean jack.  If someone had some credible evidence against plate tectonics, I'd consider agreeing with you.  Until that happens, you philosophy majors can have a nice day.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

you are a very poor scientist if you fail to accept the possibility of that theory being wrong

a good scientist will question everything, it is the only way new things get discovered and bad theories getting debunked and science as a whole moving forward

[The Geologist]

I'd thank you not to label me as anything, since you really don't know jack about what I do or how I do it.  As for this argument, there's nothing to question - there are plates, and they move.  There are plenty of questions about what drives this movement, some of which are pretty interesting. 

But as for the basics (there are plates, they move) there's no question.  It's been tested, proven, record, modeled, reconstructed, deconstructed, and so on down the line.   

The things that get questioned these days are along the lines of:

How is plate tectonics driven?  Mantle convection, small scale convection, or something else?  It's commonly considered to be convection, but we could be wrong on that.

Plate reconstruction and movement over time - that's a whole bag of worms that even I'm highly skeptical of.  Then again, I don't know much about it.  Just that there's plenty of room for error.

What happens to subducted plates?  Some people think they melt, others think they sink to the mantle-core interface. 

These are just a few.  But as for the original conflict here, there's no doubt.  Tectonic plates are moving.  Just like you can watch a car move in the road, or a person walk down the street.  The whole point of the original hypothesis was an alternative to the whole "static Earth" concept.  Do you question if a ball rolling across the floor is really moving?  No - it's obviously moving.  How and why it's moving is where the real question is. 

In short, it's 100% proven that plates move and jostle about for position.  What drives this, where they've been, and so on are still up in the air and awaiting more evidence before any sort of conclusion is reached.   

[~Niko~]

Why believe in god in first case?

[N. Escalona]

Anyone who thinks that science is a lie is irremediably dumb.

Feel free to believe in any god, but the science will always be truth until the opposite is proved.

GaH!

Science will NOT always be the truth. Using the scientific method can easily lead to false conclusions.
Also proof shouldn't be in this sentence.

you are a very poor scientist if you fail to accept the possibility of that theory being wrong

a good scientist will question everything, it is the only way new things get discovered and bad theories getting debunked and science as a whole moving forward

This is why it's a good thing proof has nothing to do with science. Thanks panzer.

@Geologist, all you guys:
Evidence =/= proof. Therefore,
evidence + evidence + evidence + evidence + evidence + evidence + ... + evidence =/= proof.
Evidence has nothing to do with proof either. You can't prove anything with evidence. If the evidence does remove reasonable doubt (like plate tectonics) then it's still not proven, but you should probably believe in it. Ultimately all knowledge is based on belief, because certainty is not possible.

Anyways you can invalidate science, but that just becomes an invalidation of human perception. After that, you can't say anything is anything, in which case you have no need to believe in God since it's bullshit the same as science is.

Well, yes. That's right. But that's not a bad thing, it's just the way things are. Nothing is certain. You can't say anything is anything. I'm not certain God exists, I'm just really sure; I believe.

Why believe in god in first case?

Why believe in the existence of anyone in this topic, and thereby waste time by discussing with us? Why believe in plate tectonics?

[The Geologist]

@Geologist, all you guys:
Evidence =/= proof. Therefore,
evidence + evidence + evidence + evidence + evidence + evidence + ... + evidence =/= proof.
Evidence has nothing to do with proof either. You can't prove anything with evidence. If the evidence does remove reasonable doubt (like plate tectonics) then it's still not proven, but you should probably believe in it. Ultimately all knowledge is based on belief, because certainty is not possible.

When you have enough evidence to remove all doubt, you've got proof.  In the case of plate tectonics, there's absolutely no way you or anyone else can say that the plates aren't moving.  It's fact.  Get over it.  It's not just hordes of evidence lumped together.  It's evidence used as the premise in a logical argument for the existence of movement of parts of the Earth's crust.

No one is going to come along and say the plates really aren't moving.  Ever.  Until they actually stop moving.  Which may happen given enough time.  Fortunately, none of us will be around to see it.

Let me ask you something - if you see a car drive down the street, do you question if it's actually moving?

Why believe in plate tectonics?

Because it's proven.

[N. Escalona]

I think you're misinterpreting me. I'm not saying that people shouldn't believe in plate tectonics. I'm just saying that it's a matter of faith based on the available evidence. I said the evidence removed all reasonable doubt, not all doubt. If all doubt were removed, there would indeed be proof. Not going to happen though.

There's no fact you can describe to me that I can't invent a hypothetical that would essentially invalidate it. Sure, these hypotheticals will be absurd. But proof is an extreme, an absolute; there is no spectrum of proof. Absurdity is justified because even one counterexample means there is no proof.

if you see a car drive down the street, do you question if it's actually moving?

No. I believe without proof. It would be unreasonable to do otherwise.

[iDante]

Escalona is right here. Proofs are only achievable through math/logic.
I don't see what it has to do with religion though.

[The Geologist]

If all doubt were removed, there would indeed be proof. Not going to happen though.

What do you doubt?  And please don't bring up the GPS nonsense again.  They aren't broken, they're working fine.  You could stick two flags on either side of two converging plates and see that they were moving together.

There's no fact you can describe to me that I can't invent a hypothetical that would essentially invalidate it. Sure, these hypotheticals will be absurd. But proof is an extreme, an absolute; there is no spectrum of proof. Absurdity is justified because even one counterexample means there is no proof.

Unless these hypotheticals come with something to back them up, they're meaningless.  I could hypothesize that water isn't made of only hydrogen and oxygen, but also some third as of yet unidentified element, but it'd be a waste of time without any evidence/logical reason to do so.

No. I believe without proof. It would be unreasonable to do otherwise.

Have fun being a philosopher. 

Proofs are only achievable through math/logic.

The latter was used in this case, when the old premise that the Earth was static did not agree with what was observed. 

Seriously, fuck this.  I'm not saying science proves everything, but there are things that have been proven.  And none of you can do anything but come up with asinine hypotheticals that somehow invalidate everything else.

When you come to the table with some evidence to state plate tectonics is wrong, I'll change my stance.  'til then, in my book it's proven that plates move.

[iDante]

You've just stated the difference between plate tectonics and, say, F=ma.

When you come to the table with some evidence to state plate tectonics is wrong, I'll change my stance.

The fact that it is at all possible for there to be evidence against it immediately makes it not 100% certain and therefore not true proof.

[8th_account]

Plates moving is a scientific fact in the same manner as bodies with mass pull toward eachother, as fruit flies changing from generation to generation and as a car moving is considered to be moving are scientific facts. These are objective and verified observations.

If one cannot trust observation, then what good are we for? Why do we bother existing if everything we percieve could be something else? Maybe the car moving from left to right was a blue apple that exploded... But we do bother existing, so we might as well trust our observations in order to make the best of it.