Official Religious Debate Thread

[N. Escalona]

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

Well, we certainly couldn't stay on topic. That just wouldn't make any sense.

[excruciator]

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

It's funny how you arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe and not.
I don't think that you don't believe in something because of lack of proof, but because you just don't want to.

And you are right, science does not provide truth 100% of the time.
But what it does is to provide a model that will fit into the reality, and works in most known applications.

In term of that, a working theory is the same as truth.

So next time people say "truth", use this definition.

[N. Escalona]

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

It's funny how you arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe and not.
I don't think that you don't believe in something because of lack of proof, but because you just don't want to.

You're right. To an extent, belief is arbitrary. But this has nothing to do with me! Everyone chooses to believe or disbelieve based on evidence, faith, philosophy, whatever. It obviously has no guarantee of correctness, but trial by jury is based on the assumption it's often right.

And you are right, science does not provide truth 100% of the time.
But what it does is to provide a model that will fit into the reality, and works in most known applications.

Yes, exactly! There was nothing I said that contradicted what you're saying here.

In term of that, a working theory is the same as truth.

So next time people say "truth", use this definition.

But you made that definition up. Truth has a long-established meaning of (simply stated) that which is fact. Not that which we think is fact. There's a huge difference. Truth is independent of our perception of truth.

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.

I hate to continue being an ass here but again, no, you cannot be certain of that. You have no guarantee the GPS system works correctly. You have no way of knowing for certain whether the earth is hollow or not. Sure, you could drill through the earth but you still couldn't be sure, your senses could have been fooled.

That's what I'm trying to say here. All non-inherent knowledge you have has been transmitted through your senses. Your senses may be fooled very easily. We could be living in the Matrix. You cannot be certain of anything.

I'm not trying to argue you shouldn't trust anything. That's pretty close to the definition of belief, which isn't bad in any sense. What I want y'all to do is just recognize that you don't know anything for a fact and that your entire life is based on belief.

[GSx_Major]

Sure, you could drill through the earth but you still couldn't be sure, your senses could have been fooled.

So instead of beliving your senses you assume they're wrong?

We could be living in the Matrix. You cannot be certain of anything.

Please understand that I am a very active Catholic, as well as an aspiring scientist who hopes to do research in (physics|chemistry|biology) for the rest of his life.

Why would you? You can't be sure of anything.

What I want y'all to do is just recognize that you don't know anything for a fact and that your entire life is based on belief.

Perception is not belief, and while you can try to bring it down to that level it still requires evidence making it corruptible at worst. Also, senses aren't magical, they're completely accurate - the problems begin when you interpret them.

[iDante]

Sure, you could drill through the earth but you still couldn't be sure, your senses could have been fooled.

So instead of beliving your senses you assume they're wrong?

The point is that we do believe them, even though they could be wrong.

[GSx_Major]

The point is that we do believe them, even though they could be wrong.

and then some... was my point. He believes beyond his senses, beyond (and against) evidence.

[excruciator]

But you made that definition up. Truth has a long-established meaning of (simply stated) that which is fact. Not that which we think is fact. There's a huge difference. Truth is independent of our perception of truth.

Regardless of the source of info, You do realize that based on whatever information/evidence we've got, you cannot distinguish truth between a working theory?

Whatever you said sorta feels like an ad hominem attack, but I can't be sure.

You're right. To an extent, belief is arbitrary. But this has nothing to do with me! Everyone chooses to believe or disbelieve based on evidence, faith, philosophy, whatever. It obviously has no guarantee of correctness, but trial by jury is based on the assumption it's often right.

Then I personally believe that unreasonable belief has no place in a debate.

Sure, you could drill through the earth but you still couldn't be sure, your senses could have been fooled.

So instead of beliving your senses you assume they're wrong?

The point is that we do believe them, even though they could be wrong.

You are right, chance govern the universe. There is always a chance that things will f**k up.
Know what chi-square analysis is? Is an process to validate a set of statistics, and determine whether the error is random or systematic.
Essentially, there is still a way to test a null hypothesis even it the theoretical does not match actual perfectly.

Point is, if the hypothesis is right, then systematic error will not exist, therefore the whole data, even with random errors, after a number of trials will still achieve the right result. So there is chance that we are wrong about everything. But the odds would be more than a million to one.

and you know what we do when we get a number that small in math? we consider it to be 0 when evaluating!

[The Geologist]

This topic is rapidly becoming Descartes' bloated colon.

[N. Escalona]

Sure, you could drill through the earth but you still couldn't be sure, your senses could have been fooled.

So instead of beliving your senses you assume they're wrong?

No, I usually assume my senses are right. I'm just aware they could be totally wrong.

We could be living in the Matrix. You cannot be certain of anything.

Please understand that I am a very active Catholic, as well as an aspiring scientist who hopes to do research in (physics|chemistry|biology) for the rest of his life.

Why would you? You can't be sure of anything.

Certainty is not necessary to have a worthwhile life. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. If you can't be sure of anything, then you should do nothing?

What I want y'all to do is just recognize that you don't know anything for a fact and that your entire life is based on belief.

Perception is not belief, and while you can try to bring it down to that level it still requires evidence making it corruptible at worst. Also, senses aren't magical, they're completely accurate - the problems begin when you interpret them.

Perception is evidence. While you're right that accuracy isn't technically an attribute to be ascribed to sensation, the point is that none of our sensory input can be used to make conclusions with any certainty. You can't be sure of any conclusion based on your senses, even something as simple as "my hand is bleeding" or whatever.

This topic is rapidly becoming Descartes' bloated colon.

You're a physical scientist and I respect that, but just because this discussion is removed from your usual range of mental exercise doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. This is common enough, for scientists to get highfalutin about philosophers.

[excruciator]

Mind replying to my post escalona?

Or you completely missed it by chance?

[N. Escalona]

Actually I did. I don't know how I missed a large post like that.

But you made that definition up. Truth has a long-established meaning of (simply stated) that which is fact. Not that which we think is fact. There's a huge difference. Truth is independent of our perception of truth.

Regardless of the source of info, You do realize that based on whatever information/evidence we've got, you cannot distinguish truth between a working theory?

Whatever you said sorta feels like an ad hominem attack, but I can't be sure.

Yes, I realize that truth cannot be distinguished from theory with certainty. In many cases, though, it can be. That's what happens when, in popular parlance, an old theory has been "disproven."

You're right. To an extent, belief is arbitrary. But this has nothing to do with me! Everyone chooses to believe or disbelieve based on evidence, faith, philosophy, whatever. It obviously has no guarantee of correctness, but trial by jury is based on the assumption it's often right.

Then I personally believe that unreasonable belief has no place in a debate.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by unreasonable. If you mean going against reason then I agree with you. But faith transcends reason, and reason alone can't make me believe in God. Reason can lead me to live a righteous life, but to believe in God I need faith, not just reason. But this faith does not contradict the reason, it only augments it.

If by ad hominem you mean that I am arguing a bit aggressively, I apologize. I still do that sometimes. It's nothing personal. Hard to transmit your tone over the nets I guess.

Sure, you could drill through the earth but you still couldn't be sure, your senses could have been fooled.

So instead of beliving your senses you assume they're wrong?

The point is that we do believe them, even though they could be wrong.

You are right, chance govern the universe. There is always a chance that things will f**k up.
Know what chi-square analysis is? Is an process to validate a set of statistics, and determine whether the error is random or systematic.
Essentially, there is still a way to test a null hypothesis even it the theoretical does not match actual perfectly.

Point is, if the hypothesis is right, then systematic error will not exist, therefore the whole data, even with random errors, after a number of trials will still achieve the right result. So there is chance that we are wrong about everything. But the odds would be more than a million to one.

and you know what we do when we get a number that small in math? we consider it to be 0 when evaluating!

I'm in statistics right now, and yes I know what you're talking about. But only statisticians consider 0.0000001 to be 0! I don't really consider statistics a field of mathematics any more than physics is. Real mathematicians would never consider an extremely small number to be zero. So yes, the chance may be absurdly small, and it may never affect any decisions we make, but it still means that all our decisions are based on belief.

[Smegma]

and you know what we do when we get a number that small in math? we consider it to be 0 when evaluating!

We consider a lot of things for the sake of convenience.

[Lord Frunkamunch]

Jesus christ people, don't act as if what Escalona's saying about proof is a personal insult to you. He's not saying that we should doubt everything we see because it isn't proven yet. He's saying that nothing can be absolutely proven, because it is a physical impossibility to test every infinite variable that could possibly arise in the universe.

Mind replying to my post escalona?

Or you completely missed it by chance?

Whatever you said sorta feels like an ad hominem attack, but I can't be sure.

*cough*

[excruciator]

and you know what we do when we get a number that small in math? we consider it to be 0 when evaluating!

We consider a lot of things for the sake of convenience.

And that is just one of them.

...but it still means that all our decisions are based on belief.

If the chance was 50:50, you statement would be right.
But in face of overwhelming odds, believing in the latter means making decisions based on belief.
While if you believe in the overwhelming odds, you are just realistic.

Ohh and Frank
From my understanding, ad hominem means attacking the person instead of his statement.
There was no statement I wanted to direct.

[N. Escalona]

...but it still means that all our decisions are based on belief.

If the chance was 50:50, you statement would be right.
But in face of overwhelming odds, believing in the latter means making decisions based on belief.
While if you believe in the overwhelming odds, you are just realistic.

Well, okay - realistically believing as opposed to unrealistically believing. Either way it's still belief. Besides, where would you draw the line between 50:50 and overwhelming?
I can understand what looks like a kneejerk reaction against "belief" but it is what it is. If that's not what this is though, sorry for misconstruing.

[excruciator]

Well, allow me to correct myself, you don't even have to believe in the overwhelming odds.
It just happen. And you accept it.

While if you believe in the very insignificantly small chance, It does not happen. So all you CAN do is to believe.

50:50 is got a large wiggle room.
while a million to one is, well has little wiggle room.

I know there isn't always gonna be that clear cut.
But if that much evidence points to plate tectonics for example, what is the chance that all those evidence are misleading?

[N. Escalona]

I see what you're saying. I agree the chance is very low. I'm making a semantic distinction that I happen to think is important. For practical purposes we are in agreement.

[Smegma]

50:50 is got a large wiggle room.
while a million to one is, well has little wiggle room.

Truth doesn't care about odds.

[excruciator]

I see what you're saying. I agree the chance is very low. I'm making a semantic distinction that I happen to think is important. For practical purposes we are in agreement.

Important, maybe.
Improbable and/or impractical? definitely.

50:50 is got a large wiggle room.
while a million to one is, well has little wiggle room.

Truth doesn't care about odds.

But odds exists and affects everything.

[N. Escalona]

Important, maybe.
Improbable and/or impractical? definitely.

50:50 is got a large wiggle room.
while a million to one is, well has little wiggle room.

Truth doesn't care about odds.

But odds exists and affects everything.

What he was saying is that truth is truth, but "odds" are an illusion. An event either happens or it does not, odds are just something we make up based on past experience.