How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[mnbvcxz87]

Relatively speaking anything can be modelled as the center.

Exactly, so we agree. Well that's good!

 

[Tomk80]

Beast I mean accepting science as the explanation for everything which exists.

Tom again, a couple things. First I doubt you know as a fact, like you know you have eyes and can see, what happened ten billion years ago.

Not in that way, but a fact is not necessarily something that you can directly see. That atoms are made up of electrons and protons (and often neutrons) is also a fact. It is also not something I can directly see. However, the evidence indicates that atoms consist of electrons, protons (and sometimes neutrons). A fact is not the same as an observation and something does not need to be directly observed to still be a fact.

Second the point about the big bang is, your saying the big bang happened and that's it, it doesn't matter why but it happened. I'm saying neither science nor philosophy have determined the origin of everything. So the assumption of an entity of some sort being that origin is as much as reuptable theory as the big bang. Because maybe the entity closed it's giant hand and then poof this everything exploded outward and continues to this day.

No, it is not. The point is that we have evidence like the movement of stellar systems and cosmic background radiation that gives us one possible conclusion, that the big bang happened. Now, what caused the big bang is another matter and although we have a number of theories on this, I would not be so bold as to state that this is a problem that we have already solved.

So some entity you propose instead of big bang is not as much a reputable theory as the big bang. Because the big bang has something your proposal doesn't have, evidence. Regardless of it's cause, we know that it happened, because we have this evidence. We do not have any evidence for your proposed entity.

That's the point, we don't know. So you can never say that a spiritual reasoning behind the universe is false.

I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that, whether there is a spiritual reasoning to the universe or not, the big bang happened regardless. I'm not discounting spirituality by accepting the big bang. I'm not even discounting spirituality by stating that the universe may not even have a specific reason for existence.

Consider that in Zen buddism, the question to whether there is a higher plan to the universe is completely irrelevant for it to be true. Big bang happened? Fine with Zen. Universe with no higher purpose, fine with Zen. Still, it is a very spiritual movement. Many sects of buddism are in fact teaching that we should try to get away from such concepts.

I do not oppose spiritualism in itself. I do oppose spiritualism that is held on to regardless of the evidence or (the worst kind) spiritualism that is followed purely for the spiritualism (next time a meet someone who wants to learn tai chi without learning the fighting applications, I'm gonna use some tai chi on them ).

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

No, it is basically saying that the universe is as it is, without any specific higher reasons. The universe just is. In the same way that a mountain doesn't grow because there is some higher moral reason for it to do so. It just grows, because that is what it does.

Whatever you would like the universe to be doesn't enter into it, it's just the way it is. And whether you believe you can change that or not, the very first thing to do is look at what the universe is. You first have to accept what the universe is now, before being able to change it.

Whatever your conceptions of how the universe started and worked, whether you think it is beautiful or ugly, moral or immoral, that is not what you should base your acceptance or rejection of models that describe the universe on. The universe doesn't care for you opinions, and science describing the universe doesn't either. The only thing that counts in that, is the evidence.

Now, you can use that evidence to look at the universe and how it functions and make models of that. Or you can reject those models based on your opinion of what is beautiful. Point is that, if you reject it because you think it is ugly (which is basically what you are doing), this isn't going to change the evidence. Reality doesn't care for what you feel is beautiful. Now, you can try to make the world conform more to your idea of beauty of morality. But you only will succeed in this if you first perceive the world as how it actually is, not as what you want it to be.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tomk80 again.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Isn't existence evidence of my proposed entity?

But fair enough, I'm not supporting 7 day creation, rather the idea that instead of putting all the intricacies of our life down to science, that they happened to turn out that way, rather that they were made to turn out that way.

About the eye thing, not seeing in that sense, but no one can know what happened a hundred thousand million years ago, we only know what might have happened. In the same way we think we know what dinosaurs looked like and ate, worn away skeletons isn't enough for that. For example a dog skeleton would show canine teeth, someone from the distant future may assume and then write in their book of ancient history the dogs were meat eaters bla bla when infact they are omnivorous.

Side tracked just a bit there! Anyway I think we agree now, more or less.

 

[Tomk80]

Isn't existence evidence of my proposed entity?

Why would it be? Why would a supernatural explanation for be a better explanation than a natural one?

But fair enough, I'm not supporting 7 day creation,

To emphasize this, I didn't think you were.

rather the idea that instead of putting all the intricacies of our life down to science, that they happened to turn out that way, rather that they were made to turn out that way.

But that is a religious position which still doesn't negate the things we do know about how the universe came into existence. Do you understand what I mean with that now?

About the eye thing, not seeing in that sense, but no one can know what happened a hundred thousand million years ago, we only know what might have happened.

But if you have enough evidence, such a conclusion can be very strong. I would propose that the big bang is one of those very strong conclusions.

In the same way we think we know what dinosaurs looked like and ate, worn away skeletons isn't enough for that. For example a dog skeleton would show canine teeth, someone from the distant future may assume and then write in their book of ancient history the dogs were meat eaters bla bla when infact they are omnivorous.

Of course. But then, if they found dog poo, or if the fossil is a little more recent, stomach contents, they will adjust that theory. Facts can change, but some facts are stronger in evidence then others and if they are stronger in evidence, they are less likely to change.

Side tracked just a bit there! Anyway I think we agree now, more or less.

I do think so

 

[Tomk80]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tomk80 again.

Thanks!

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Let me start off by saying thanks to Tom. I agree with everything he has said in my absence whole heartedly.

Let me see if I can help make this more clear for mnb…

Isn't existence evidence of my proposed entity?

This is a very common idea in theism. It is why you’ll see atheists bring up occam's razor. While you are correct in your previous assertions that we can not disprove your postulated entity, you have to ask yourself if that fact lends the idea and more merit. If I postulated that the universe was only one of many universes birthed by a giant space turtle you couldn’t disprove my entity either. What both our entity’s have in common is assumption. Occam’s razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. Extra assumptions are simply speculation and, as such, are not particularly useful. Do you picture the creator of the universe to look like us? Ever wonder why?

You are correct, neither philosophy nor science can tell us anything about what created the universe, or what created that creator, or its creator, etc. Therefore, any assertions as to the nature of this entity is pure and unmitigated speculation. Placing too much stock into any assertions about that entity’s existence, much less it’s attributes, is foolhardy.

About the eye thing, not seeing in that sense, but no one can know what happened a hundred thousand million years ago, we only know what might have happened. In the same way we think we know what dinosaurs looked like and ate, worn away skeletons isn't enough for that. For example a dog skeleton would show canine teeth, someone from the distant future may assume and then write in their book of ancient history the dogs were meat eaters bla bla when infact they are omnivorous.

Side tracked just a bit there! Anyway I think we agree now, more or less.

No offense, but this is where you show a lack of understanding of science. Science collects evidence and then formulates it’s hypotheses to explain the evidence. After that is tries to test the hypotheses and make predictions based on them. If it stands up to the rigors of science then it becomes a theory. It never stops being tested though. As time goes on it either gets stronger, gets refined, or gets thrown out. If you were to research more into the science of why we know, basically, what dinosaurs looked like and what they ate you will find that it’s based on evidence and solid reasoning. We can tell what an animal ate just by what kind of teeth they had. We know how thick the muscle mass and skin had to be to support their weight. From a few basic principles we can come pretty close to what they must have looked like.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

How odd that someone would champion their mind and the theories that go with it using the example of heliocentricity. Relatively speaking anything can be modelled as the center.

I’m going to have to call you out on this. While, in theory, this may be true by definition, the “models” that one would have to construct to place the earth at the center of the universe would be mind numbingly cumbersome and most likely defy the laws of physics just to “work”. So no, you can’t really model anything as the center.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Well the big bang is a strange thing. We see almost never ending distances, and they are still increasing so we think, so what makes most sense is that all of the matter of the universe was condensed in one point and simply exploded outward.

But that itself is only an idea that seems logical. In past times the universe revolving around us seemed logical. Maybe sometime science will know exactly how the universe came into being, but personally I see this as something too great to ever know.

The intricacies of our life is something so beyond science, we dont know the origin, we don't know how life came into being, we don't know the real purpose of sleep (there's a few theories again but nothing concrete), we don't truly understand the brain, etc.

So to someone like me, you see all of the things we just don't know, and science falls short. My philosophy makes more sense to me.

By the way 'But that is a religious position which still doesn't negate the things we do know about how the universe came into existence'

More philosophical than religious, and it doesn't negate the things we know, why would it negate them? Like your buddhism example, my philosophy works with what science knows.

But not necessarily with it's theories.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

You really think a 65 million year old skeletal remain gives you evidence about what an animal ate? It doesn't and can't. Science makes enourmous assumptions in these things, how can you even possibly begin to deduce for example where a stool sample comes from if it is found somewhere preserves by something, and it is millions of years old?

Point is, we know barely anything about dinosaurs, and even less about things which may have happened tens of billions of years ago.

Also empirical, wether or not it is a scientific principle, moral or philosophical reasoning is a very solid foundation to many on this subject. Not every has the attitude lets see what we know and not put reason to things.

What occams razor states is not important, finally 'Extra assumptions are simply speculation and, as such, are not particularly useful. Do you picture the creator of the universe to look like us? Ever wonder why?'

I picture the creator to look something like everything. We're all it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Well the big bang is a strange thing. We see almost never ending distances, and they are still increasing so we think, so what makes most sense is that all of the matter of the universe was condensed in one point and simply exploded outward.

The big bang is hard to wrap ones mind around. Firstly, it wasn’t an explosion. The “bang” happened everywhere in the universe simultaneously. If we observe other things in the universe we find that, as a general rule, everything is moving away from everything else. If you rewind time like rewinding a video you’ll find that everything starts to collapse back together.

But that itself is only an idea that seems logical.

And, more importantly, fits the evidence we have.

In past times the universe revolving around us seemed logical.

Because the only evidence we had was the simple observation that all the objects in the sky seemed to go around us. Since we didn’t feel ourselves moving we thought the universe revolved around us. Once you realize that you will start to realize why bibles are so chock full of error. They were written by men of antiquity with limited scientific knowledge. The made assumptions not unlike the ones you make today.

Maybe sometime science will know exactly how the universe came into being, but personally I see this as something too great to ever know.

The intricacies of our life is something so beyond science, we dont know the origin, we don't know how life came into being, we don't know the real purpose of sleep (there's a few theories again but nothing concrete), we don't truly understand the brain, etc.

So to someone like me, you see all of the things we just don't know, and science falls short. My philosophy makes more sense to me.

This is called a “god of the gaps” rationale. The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years. Science has only been here an infinitesimally small time to try and explain it my comparison. Instead of throwing our hands up in the air whenever we can’t explain something and assign it a god is the pinnacle of laziness. We should always work toward solving the next unknown. If not for science people would still be praying to the volcano god and throwing sacrifices in to prevent eruptions. We are not so different today.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Emprical I think you're painting it a little black and white. Also nice to know every thought is covered by a phrase be it a razor or god of the gaps. It's good that thought doesn't exist, we're only producing an idea which fits under a label.

Side issue, do you hold any importance in individual life? Wether of human or animal.

Not to forget to mention science doesn't know about the missing link in evolution that separates us.

Why don't dolphins rule the seas, being by far the most intelligent aquatic animal?

Science assumes there was a big bang, and that evolution took place, and really all science actually knows with concrete proof is obvious things. Like what's inside the body...how blood is pumped, the makeup of things we see. It doesn't actually know that much.

 

[Tomk80]

Well the big bang is a strange thing. We see almost never ending distances, and they are still increasing so we think, so what makes most sense is that all of the matter of the universe was condensed in one point and simply exploded outward.

But that itself is only an idea that seems logical. In past times the universe revolving around us seemed logical. Maybe sometime science will know exactly how the universe came into being, but personally I see this as something too great to ever know.

First to clear away some misconceptions:
1. the big bang is not an explosion, but an expansion.
2. the big bang does not describe how the universe started. It only explains what happened right after it's start.

Also, what other conclusion could you possibly draw based on our current observations?

The intricacies of our life is something so beyond science, we dont know the origin, we don't know how life came into being, we don't know the real purpose of sleep (there's a few theories again but nothing concrete), we don't truly understand the brain, etc.

So to someone like me, you see all of the things we just don't know, and science falls short. My philosophy makes more sense to me.

But now you are basing your philosphy on things we do not know, which is a very shaky position to take. What we don't know, we don't know. There it ends for that.

By the way 'But that is a religious position which still doesn't negate the things we do know about how the universe came into existence'

More philosophical than religious, and it doesn't negate the things we know, why would it negate them? Like your buddhism example, my philosophy works with what science knows.

But not necessarily with it's theories. [/quote]
That is what you yourself state, isn't it. You do not want to accept the big bang, not because of the evidence, but because you do not like the idea. That is what you continually say. Theories are what science knows, because they derive directly from it.

 

[Tomk80]

You really think a 65 million year old skeletal remain gives you evidence about what an animal ate? It doesn't and can't.

If poo contains grass, the animal ate grass. Where's the error in thinking? It's how we work when hunting and tracking animals, why would it suddenly be invalid for fossil remains?

Science makes enourmous assumptions in these things, how can you even possibly begin to deduce for example where a stool sample comes from if it is found somewhere preserves by something, and it is millions of years old?

By looking at the place where you found it. What does the sediment around it look like. What other creatures (animals and plants) are found in the same layers and neighbourhood? What is the structure of the sediment and do we see signs of intrusions? Science doesn't make huge assumptions in this, rather, you haven't got a good picture on how scientists arrive at their conclusions. That is a whole different issue.

Point is, we know barely anything about dinosaurs, and even less about things which may have happened tens of billions of years ago.

That is definitely true. However, that still doesn't negate what we do know.

Also empirical, wether or not it is a scientific principle, moral or philosophical reasoning is a very solid foundation to many on this subject. Not every has the attitude lets see what we know and not put reason to things.

I don't like that a guy in my class was killed in a hit and run. That isn't moral, right? Nevertheless, it happened. Morality is not a guideline to what exists or happened, it only tells us how we think something should happen.

What occams razor states is not important,

au contraire, it is essential.

finally 'Extra assumptions are simply speculation and, as such, are not particularly useful. Do you picture the creator of the universe to look like us? Ever wonder why?'

I picture the creator to look something like everything. We're all it.

How do you know?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

You really think a 65 million year old skeletal remain gives you evidence about what an animal ate? It doesn't and can't.

So you’re telling me that if I showed you these pictures you’d maintain that we could no nothing about what these animals ate?

http://www.etsu.edu/grayfossilsite/Species/jaw.jpg

Science makes enourmous assumptions in these things, how can you even possibly begin to deduce for example where a stool sample comes from if it is found somewhere preserves by something, and it is millions of years old?

Start with the size. Is it a tiny pellet like what might come from a hamster or is it a massive pile that may have come from an elephant? Information can be gleaned from fossils that you can’t imagine. You should really look into it. So many people squander the gift of the internet.

Also empirical, wether or not it is a scientific principle, moral or philosophical reasoning is a very solid foundation to many on this subject. Not every has the attitude lets see what we know and not put reason to things.

I’m not telling people they shouldn’t philosophize. What I object to is when people use their philosophies to reject science. No matter how much you don’t like the TofE or the Big Bang on philosophical grounds it won’t ever change the evidence. And the evidence shows both to be true.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

But what you say science knows is still as assumtion. The thing about dinosaurs is, if you think about how much activity goes on in just one year in terms of naturally occuring phenominoms, migration, starvation of one species and movement, I mean how could anyone even possibly look at the tinyest fractions of evidence and then say we know what this dinosaur ate? I totally agree you can look at these bits of evidence and come to conclusions of what was likely to have happened, but dinosaur books should not state them as fact.

'I don't like that a guy in my class was killed in a hit and run. That isn't moral, right? Nevertheless, it happened. Morality is not a guideline to what exists or happened, it only tells us how we think something should happen.'

Well that's a philosophical issue, and not that science isn't extremely useful for how things happened that we know. No one could deny that science hasn't told us about the make up of our bodys in huge detail, but rather that science and morality should work side by side. Science tells us how the universe is held together by gravity, morality tells us why the universe exists (people's ideas for it at least). The two don't have to be at odds. It seems to me the point at which they are mostly is the origin of things, which neither knows anyway!

'How do you know?'

I don't but it makes sense. What a philosopher says is what makes sense to them, and then others can decide if they agree with the idea.

 

[Tomk80]

But what you say science knows is still as assumtion. The thing about dinosaurs is, if you think about how much activity goes on in just one year in terms of naturally occuring phenominoms, migration, starvation of one species and movement, I mean how could anyone even possibly look at the tinyest fractions of evidence and then say we know what this dinosaur ate?

It's not an assumption. When we state, based on the above fossils, that the animal ate meat, it's a conclusion. Based on what facts would you arrive at a different conclusion? Who says we look at the tiniest fraction?

I totally agree you can look at these bits of evidence and come to conclusions of what was likely to have happened, but dinosaur books should not state them as fact.

When you go into the more advanced literature, they don't. But dinosaur books are often much simplified.

'I don't like that a guy in my class was killed in a hit and run. That isn't moral, right? Nevertheless, it happened. Morality is not a guideline to what exists or happened, it only tells us how we think something should happen.'

Well that's a philosophical issue, and not that science isn't extremely useful for how things happened that we know. No one could deny that science hasn't told us about the make up of our bodys in huge detail, but rather that science and morality should work side by side. Science tells us how the universe is held together by gravity, morality tells us why the universe exists (people's ideas for it at least).

How does morality tell us the universe exists? X exists is just as much a scientific statement, it's an observation.

The two don't have to be at odds.

who says they are?

It seems to me the point at which they are mostly is the origin of things, which neither knows anyway!

How are they at odds? What can morality tell us about the origin of things?

'How do you know?'

I don't but it makes sense. What a philosopher says is what makes sense to them, and then others can decide if they agree with the idea.

Which is completely useless, because then all ideas have equal value. Which is why philosophy should let itself be informed by science, so it won't make statements that are contrary to the evidence.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Empirical the evidence shows both likely to be true. You could negate both on the grounds of philosophy if you agreed with plato. What if everything is merely the creation of our minds, our 5 senses? I'm only making the point that science isn't the be all and end all, there are other ideas which may be true. Ever attaining knowledge when our minds have limits is proof that science will never give us true understanding of the universe because there are bounds which we cannot even comprehend.

Can you honestly comprehend the concept of nothing? The concept that when you die, you will have no existence? That is the limit of our mind, and so instead of searching for facts, and data like a computer, we should (in my opinion) use our minds to look for truth in a different way. Through philosophy. Just another perspective on things.

About the bones, the black one looks less like a pure carnivore than a cat or dog's teeth. The first I'm assuming is a sabre toothed cat? In which case it looks omnivorous from the teeth, but cat's are pure carnivores? < Silly point just realised.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Emprical I think you're painting it a little black and white. Also nice to know every thought is covered by a phrase be it a razor or god of the gaps. It's good that thought doesn't exist, we're only producing an idea which fits under a label.

Come on now, I never said thought doesn’t exist. These things have labels because they are thoughts that have been around long before our discussion. It helps to put labels on things. At least you can look it up if you’re so inclined.

Side issue, do you hold any importance in individual life? Wether of human or animal.

Sure, but does that mean I think that we shouldn’t eat animals? No. If anyone is painting the universe in black and white I believe it is you. Your beliefs are not realistic and no matter how much your philosophy tells you that eating animals is wrong alligators will always eat antelopes. Because individuals evolved to be predators doesn’t mean Evolution is the root of bad morals and therefore not true. It’s just how it is.

Not to forget to mention science doesn't know about the missing link in evolution that separates us.

Separates us from what?

Why don't dolphins rule the seas, being by far the most intelligent aquatic animal?

Science assumes there was a big bang, and that evolution took place, and really all science actually knows with concrete proof is obvious things. Like what's inside the body...how blood is pumped, the makeup of things we see. It doesn't actually know that much.

It knows far more than you give it credit for.

 

[Opcode42]

Emprical I think you're painting it a little black and white. Also nice to know every thought is covered by a phrase be it a razor or god of the gaps. It's good that thought doesn't exist, we're only producing an idea which fits under a label.

When you've been debating and discussing the clash between science and religion for some time, you begin to recognize the arguments most commonly used by the opposition. Your arguments above are of such a nature. We've seen them before. They are not original, thus having seen them many times before, we have come to refer to them as a specific name. On this forum, they are referred as a whole as PRATTs(Points refuted a thousand times)

Thats just something humans do. We are very good at pattern recognition. It is an important survival skill. Thus we continue to use it today, to the point where we even assign labels to over used arguments that have been refuted countless times before.

You may not like the term "God of the Gaps" but just like the universe you rail against, just becuase you don't like it doesn't make it false. If you insert god or another unevidenced supernatural explanation, into the answer anytime someone says, "we do not know", then you are using God of the Gaps.

Side issue, do you hold any importance in individual life? Wether of human or animal.

Not to forget to mention science doesn't know about the missing link in evolution that separates us.

Missing link is a term made up by the media, and has no place in science.

Imagine if you will taking a snap shot of a runner at the start and finish of the race. You can tell he started, and you can tell he finished, but you have a "missing link" between them. Now suppose a friend of yours took 5 pictures during the race. Added to yours you now have 7 pictures and a much better idea of what happened during the race. However, your "missing links" have actually increased to 5 "missing links" there are now 5 gaps between succesive pictures versus the one you started with.

This is why "missing link" is a bogus term. We have many many fossils of humans and our ancestors. We can derive a chain of descent from the earliest to the most recent. However, every time we find a new link in the chain, we create two more "missing links" between it and the fossil before and after it.

The only way to get rid of all the "missing links" is to have a fosil for every human ancestor that ever lived.

Why don't dolphins rule the seas, being by far the most intelligent aquatic animal?

Intelligence is just intelligence. Inteligence without direction, without utilization and a method and need to do so is of little importance. Dolphins function extremely well in their biological niche. There is no pressure on them to change. Without any need to change, they will not change.

Humanity changed from arboreal primates to tool using hunter gatherers over a very long period of time, because our enviornment changed. Once we made the transition to the savanahs of Africa, we no longer were able to compete as well with other predators for food. Over time we learned how to make tools, so that we too could have the claws of a lion(knives), or the speed of a cheetah(spears, and learning how to throw them to take down prey from a distance). We were forced to adapt to a new biological niche, and our intelligence and physical dexterity is what gave us the capability to do so.

In time, as our oceans continue to change, Dolphins will also adapt. Perhaps they too will utilize their inttleigence to overcome some new obstacle, though without the extra benefit of a primates oppposable thumb, they are unlikely to develop sophisticated tools, and thus have no need for complex societies such as the modern human.

Science assumes there was a big bang, and that evolution took place, and really all science actually knows with concrete proof is obvious things. Like what's inside the body...how blood is pumped, the makeup of things we see. It doesn't actually know that much.

This is where that annoying thing called semantics comes in. I know you like to brush it aside, but when discussing things in science, it is of the utmost importance that everyone agree on the definition of terms. Semantics can be the difference between being understood or failing utterly to get your point across.

Science does NOT assume their was a Big Bang. We have multiple lines of evidence concerning the origins of the Universe, and this evidence leads us to conclude that what we call the Big Bang occured.

This is vastly different from an assumption. An assumption is a conclusion based on little to no evidence, and more on personal preference or desire. You assume there is a higher power behind everything, because this makes "sense" to you, and provides comfort to you. But without any evidence for such a beings existence, this is nothing more than an assumption. Science cannot work with assumption. Without evidence for or against such a proposition, we can not draw a conclusion to its validity, and thus cannot factor it into any theories.


You really do need to spend some time to learn what science is really about, what it is capable of, what its limits really are, and what is and is not science. Your posts show that you are poorly informed on these subjects.