indeed i agree, and i do doubt, more then most, i actraully hold zero absolutes,
but there is a difference between doubt and cherry picking arguments of others, these idios could be learning reather then arguing with even more idiotic creationists, there is simply no point whatsoever in trying to debate one
I agree, to a point, i would do such exposes on my own during my study, not in a public adn clearly dead end way, these peopel are not even well versed in evolution, and they hardly EVER bring up microbiology.
I am a true seeker of knowledge, but i dont go out of my way to prove others wrong, I simply take what i agree with or waht fits the data from ohthers poitns of view without tearing them a new one for the bits i happen to agree wtih., oh well, keep up the search freind
@zenithar6666 yeah, but they don't have to prove the other one wrong, because the other person has the burden of proof. atheists do not believe in any gods unless evidence is provided. when someone claims to have evidence, and they think it is inadequate, they try and explain why. atheism isn't about seeking knowledge. it is about not accepting fallacious claims to knowledge that theists make. also, an atheists needn't be an expert on biology or physics.
atheism is a belief system to most, not simply a stance, dawkins goes around promoting it? which is disgusting and no better then the religous fantatics, there is simply no resolving the issue between certain people, i.e creationists, evolutions, for want of better words.
I personally am utterly unconviced and damn skeptical about evolutions power, and very very much on teh desing side of things, but ill be damned to claim where such desing may have come from, and im not ruling out anything!
well unfortunaly, showing that things change over time neither points the way to atheism or ot relgion, boht stances are inherantly flawed since you have made a decision about something you cannot know, therefore stopped reserach into the opposite area.
also, if you think teh evidence somehow negates that fact taht the molecular level is an utter disaster in terms of explanation, then you have alot of reserach to do...
I have officially given up arguing and questioning peoples faith. It is useless and the same thing always happens. (They believe they are right and nothing is going to convince them otherwise.) But then again, some of them don't care about being right or wrong, they just want to be happy at whatever the cost....even if that cost involves delusion....
What about your brain? you can't examine your own brain and you know nothing about it except what you've been told. Therefore you have faith in it. How do you know that you even have a brain? is it really that much harder to have faith in God?
@notw2010 You can, go to an hospital and get a brain scan, hint, hint.. You dont need to have faith about your brain, There is extensive peer reviewed literature (not just one holy book) about how to brain works, you can actually go to a lab and see a real brain and if you have the skills you can actually perform your own research if the answers dont satisfy you.
Big friggin argument from ignorance of yours #epicfail
@notw2010 "What about your brain? you can't examine your own brain and you know nothing about it except what you've been told. Therefore you have faith in it."
That's absurd. Do you really need to be told about how human physiology is near identical from organism to organism? You know, the necessary basis for medicine? How you can visit museums of natural history and see brains?
@notw2010 How you could experiment with your senses to selectively shut out part of sensory experience in accordance with the "I have a brain" hypothesis. You could even take all kinds of drugs and determine that their effects are what would be expected. As well as having a brain scan done of course, but there's always the possibility that doctors just make that up.
@notw2010 "is it really that much harder to have faith in God?"
With respect to gods however, there is no agreement about what kind of model would be appropriate to test the idea, no model has ever passed any kind of test and many fail even the basic test that the model doesn't contradict itself, and they are therefore either wrong or useless. So yes, it is much harder to believe in gods. Although hard is perhaps a bad word here. No belief should be strived for. You believe because of evidence
Some science has been proven to be wrong, and has to be re-constructed to fit the ideas that needs to be proven. Faith has yet to be disproven and will not be disproven until it's too late for those unbelievers.
@chica0616 That's one of the purposes of science, prove itself wrong, change, adapt, it is an advantage, not a weakness.
Faith doesnt have to be disproved, just like the lake ness moster, unicorns or Thor, what you are doing is shifting the burden of proof, that's a butt-ugly and invalid way to use reason.
@elvigia666 There lies the intelligence of someone comparing a spiritual being to a physical and make believe object or thing, how do these ignorant statements obtain so many thumbs up? Are there that many ignorant and dense people in the world? I should consider not answering these poor "God doesn't exist" responses.
@chica0616 "Faith has yet to be disproven and will not be disproven until it's too late for those unbelievers."
For most religions, certainly all the Abrahamic ones, that's complete nonsense. The texts that are the basis for the god definitions are trivially self refuting through contradiction in addition to making claims that conflict with observation of reality. If you've somehow managed to avoid all the literature that shows this and can't see it yourself - that's your problem.
@Gnomefro Christianity is not what I consider a religion, I consider it a faith, point blank. You cannot make any certainty about atheism, it's just an ignorant hunch. But I can as an individual claim all certainty of a powerful God that has intervened in every aspect of my life. You however will never take the steps to test my God's power, no you'll just use your life to hold onto a hunch with absolutely no way of validity.
@chica0616 However, there's another class of "faith" - belief in unfalsifiable claims. Such claims are simply without meaning as their truth and falsehood can not be determined by any method, and consequently a reality where they are false is indistinguishable from one where they are true. Such claims are "not even wrong" in the words of Wolfgang Pauli. They have the worst conceivable epistemic status and belief in them is the epistemic equivalent of being infected with black death.
@Gnomefro Untrue once again, the only way to test your faith, and being that none of you atheists are willing to do so, your journey lies pointless. The less than intelligent ploys of comparing a spiritual being to physical unicorns and flying spaghetti men is far beyond unintelligent. So let us suppose that God is real and that the hunches of atheism are incorrect, where does this leave your destiny?
i am an atheist. but i believe that you do have faith in car breaks but it is not the same definition of the word faith. it is an equivication. in the same way i believe it is true that you can stop a skunk from smelling by cutting off its nose......but i dont think cutting a skunks nose off will stop it emmitting an unpleasant odour
People who have faith in religion and science aren't exercising "reasoned belief." If someone doesn't bother to look at evidence then their belief in science is still faith, since faith is belief without evidence.
If you tell me the world is millions of years old and I believe you because I like you and don't look at evidence, that's faith.
The difference is that with science one can look up evidence and change one's faith to reason while with religion one CANNOT believe without faith.
I accept science that I understand. I do not accept science that I do not understand. I have tried to understand Quantum Mechanics, I only understand a minutia of it, maybe not even that, so I cannot accept it. I understand religions to be manmade and there is every evidence to believe that God is also manmade, therefore I am an Atheist.
The point theyre talking about there is rly important. Too many believers think their faith doesnt need justification, they think its no problem if believes arent justified cause thats sort of the nature of believing. But this is nonsense, they just want it to be like this. In fact, every believe needs a motivation, and it sucks that for many people their indoctrination is their only motivation.
faith as in believing vs facts you have the possibility to trust in
its all about dialectic definitions.... too many people mix that upand talk past each other....... god-believer are virtually ignorant when it comes to accurate definitions and their usage.
@patrickledford420, I think on some level just about every believer knows their religion is a sham. How much that understanding is buried in their minds varies from person to person.
When science begins to close the gap between what we know & don't know, religion starts to run & hide, playing semantics, and taking refuge in any way it can from the juggernaut of reason and truth.
It's gotten to a point where it's so ridiculous that it makes no sense to even bother arguing with a religious person anymore; it's like arguing with a 6 year-old about the existence of Santa Claus.
@ejdf870 However to say that science is the only truth is self contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. Its a self defeating philosophical assumption. there are things we know more certainly through introspection than we know from the social sciences.
@ejdf870@41RobLow For example I know I have free will on the basis of my introspection and no studies in the social sciences will convince me otherwise. There is no question that science does teach us many important things about the natural world but the real question is do these things point to anything beyond themselves and the answer is yes Science teaches us may true things and some of those true things point toward God.
example I know I have free will on the basis of my introspection and no studies in the social sciences will convince me otherwise. There is no question that science does teach us many important things about the world but the real question is do these things point to anything beyond themselvesScience teaches us may true things and some of those true things point toward God.
Actualy religion dose not run and hide if anything it gets involved.. srry but your wrong it is in no way compared to arguing santa clause ...and anyways whats so bad with beleiving in god ..beileving in god helps and u atheists who are dedicated in proving god wrong you are the one doing the bad trying to prve what you think is whats right...like the atheist experiance?...what the butt! do somthing more productive with your life then trying to disprove god and making yourself mad at god
@magicgeorge361 actually its exactly the same. both have no evidence for them and people think they exist. kids eventually figure out hes not real. whats wrong with believing? nothing really except when you try to influence scietific pogress which is what usually ends up happening. funny you should mention try to prove god wrong. thats good science. in science you always try to prove your theory wrong. its how you find out whats REAL. we dont need to though. theres nothing to test with "god". .
@ejdf870 actually science has given me more proof that God does exist. Like what?? well , just look how the universe and life work intelligently, it behave intelligently, all more proof of a intelligent design and not by random chance.
@IlC4RL0SIl No one is claiming it happened by mere "chance" (like rolling dice). Instead, this 'order' and 'intelligence' you notice is nature itself. No need for the abrahamic God of the Bible that answers prayers and passes judgment.
@IlC4RL0SIl Well I believe to make any claim that something SUPERNATURAL intervened, you need significant proof for that. Simply saying "I think" is no more proof than i think i can fly when I jump off a building.
@frenchmanjohn well, I'm not crazy but I have had a supernatural experience and so have millions of people around the world.. Now there are few who are delusional .... I think there is enough proof of life after death but some people of power doesnt want us to be aware of it
@IlC4RL0SIl - So you're saying a supernatural event is observable in the natural world? If so, how is that event supernatural? Surely what you mean is 'unexplained (natural) phenomenon'. It's quite a leap to observe something unexplained and claim it to be something that is essentially a fictional construct, like a supernatural realm. Even if ghosts do exist, they cannot be supernatural if we are able to observe them or their effects.
@IlC4RL0SIl - Because they would be manifesting in our real universe and would need to obey the laws of the natural world for us to see them. Just because we may not have discovered everything about how reality works, it doesn't mean that we can just 'make stuff up' about the bits we don't know and expect to progress anywhere.
@DuTriDu I doubt millions of people around the world who have seen or experienced ghost are all made up , sure you have your few fake stories but most are legit... becuz I myself seen this and I'm not crazy nor delusional
@IlC4RL0SIl - Like you say, you and other people claim to have seen these phenomena. That tells me that these events are not supernatural. It's as simple as that. If you can see it or feel it, it's not supernatural. I don't doubt what you or other people have seen/experienced, I merely doubt your conclusions.
@IlC4RL0SIl - Then your standards of evidence are too low to be sensible. And I agree that there is more than just the physical world that we can detect at present. I also know that because we can't detect it, it is impossible to give it any meaningful attributes whilst remaining honest.
@IlC4RL0SIl people comes to different conclusions, maybe there are millions of people who've seen weird things and concluded.. ghosts !!!!! but what about the other BILLIONS who have concluded something very different? Humans are very easily tricked to look at the few times something happen and conclude something from it while forgetting that it's just a small amount in the whole picture which implies it's a misunderstanding or conclusion.
@IlC4RL0SIl Example: You have some colors and a canvas... you just let the colors "hit the fan" randomly, then someone else comes along and says "what a beautiful artwork, this must have been made by a true genius"
@ejdf870 I think all the opposite.. Science have shown more proof of an intelligent design rather than some big bang theory... do your research before commenting...
Yeah, I pretty much agree with stealspell. Even if we do have limited understanding of something, that does not mean it cannot be known. It is just beyond us. (at this moment) But I think it is dangerous to place something "beyond the realm of ever knowing."
Yeah, but just because something may be beyond our understanding does not mean it is 'beyond nature' and therefore cannot be known or measured or even understood. By that rationale, anything we do not fully understand today could be defined as 'supernatrual.'
As I've said before, "supernaturalism" is just an epistemological assessment of the know-ability of reality.
Yes, you could go to the extremes and claim that anything currently unknown is unknowable, and on the flip side you could say that everything is knowable. Or, you could do as I do and remark at the fact that a fly could never understand quantum physics in the same light as we do and therefore extrapolate there are things that our current biological forms cannot ever understand.
"... therefore extrapolate there are things that our current biological forms cannot ever understand."
You're making a big assumption claiming that. I would agree that 'our current biological forms' cannot perceive all things, but understanding has a completely different connotation. We may never be able to perceive the 4th dimension but that doesn't stop us from talking about it and trying to understand it. Perception is one thing; understanding is another.
Can a fly make understand what you are feeling right now in a context that is relevant to it? Or can we agree that there are concepts and depths of reality which are far beyond the fly's mental capabilities?
Flies are not sapient. Much of what a fly does is a response to external and internal stimuli. Humans can make judgements; flies cannot. You're fly analogy just won't fly :D
From a "hyper-sapient" species' point of view maybe we don't seem to be freethinking entities either :P
There's no way you can just make some arbitrary invisible line that dictates whether or not a creature can make logical judgments. I'd say that it's just ignorance on our part to assume that we are infinitely better than a fly. Is really that unbelievable that we may have tricked ourselves into thinking we can do and understand anything? I think there's still room to grow and evolve
You're funny you know that :D WTF did you get 'hyper-sapient species' from? This is science fiction! Anyway, I still thought it was funny; in a good way :D
"make some arbitrary invisible line that dictates whether or not a creature can make logical judgments." We call it sapience. Are you saying flies are sapient? Is this another sci-fi thing? :D
"..tricked ourselves into thinking.." I have no idea. But you're thinking too much sci-fi.
Yes, I would say they are negligibly sapient, but nonetheless not void of sapience. We make the call that they have negligible sapience based on our standards, but what about a species which is far advanced from us? Would they too consider lower lifeforms negligibly self-aware? Would we fit into that category for them?
Sure, it's sci-fi at the moment, but it does have practical implications as any good sci-fi does :P
I like the fact that you have a peculiar imagination Ephemerance.
As Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
That argument about faith and brakes is just silly. We know our car will start. We don't have faith. We have knowledge that it starts everyday. Why? Because we built it to start everyday. So faith is replaced by expectation. We can test this all the time. He he, every morning.
Actually, 'we' don't. In that case, you are making an statement about the future, in which case, I'm not sure if you actually 'know'.
If we were to define faith as : Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; here is what we can conclude.
The difference between a religious faith and a scientific faith is supporting evidence which make the argument either strong or weak. They're both inductive, but polar.
"Faith" in car brakes, is the conscious investment in the probability of something happening (within the context of what you know about the car).
But, you do have faith that your car mechanic is giving you valid information about your car brakes, and if it's a sketchy mechanic, you have blind faith that they are giving you viable information to base probabilities off of.
When there is insufficient information to draw a conclusion, you must use blind faith to resolve a question.
-Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Therefore if you have a sketchy mechanic then yes you have no proof the brakes will work. I know my mechanic though. And I'm using logic to trust my mechanic anyway based on his profession which provides proof of his mechanical knowledge.
But brakes in general have been proven to work so I do not rely on faith for my brakes
You have reasonable control over the parameters, so yes, you have some level of 'proof' that your brakes will work.
But there are an uncountable number of things that you won't have control over, and might find yourself having faith in a certain outcome (e.g. optimism).
And when it comes to axiomatic information, by the definition of faith you supplied, you require 'faith' in the ability of science to correlate to ultimate reality (supposing you were a proponent of metaphysical naturalism).
".. uncountable number of things that you won't have control over, and might find yourself having faith in a certain outcome."
Damn dude I've already aknowledged that there are an uncountable number of things that can happen in any situation.
But it is Logical that my brakes will work RIGHT NOW.
Knowing my own truck it is also Logical to assume that these random things wont hinder my brakes. Not faith. Even if somthing does hinder my brakes my decison to use them was based on logic.
Btw you can go into the situation by faith or logic. It depends on the person. For example if you have never seen a car or a simple brake system and someone tells you to "push a pedal and you will stop." This would be a time that you would rely on faith. But this is like the mechanic situation. You can come up with all sorts off sub scenarios with all sorts of "what ifs" but the bottom line is:
Brakes have been proven to work so I do not rely on faith for my brakes.
Proving something requires control over that something. Just as you may initially have faith that your mechanic is giving you proper directions for how to use a brake pedal, until you have control over that pedal to general personal proof that the pedal does what the mechanic claims.
Without control over a physical property or mechanism, we cannot generate 'proof' one way or the other of how a claim relates to it. You require faith in any determinations you make when answering such questions.
"Proving something requires control over that something." not true
Proof-The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Therefore if a car comes out of the manufacturer and it is evident that a brake system is present it is logical to assume the brakes will stop the car.
Actually I'd define proof a little differently, since it only truly exists in math. If something can be proven to be true, that would mean that it being false is impossible. I'm not sure what Ephemerance meant by "control" though.
At any rate I prefer to say "proven beyond reasonable doubt when dealing with anything other than mathematical axioms. :)
We have control over how a car manufacturer operates, the rules that apply, the legislation and standards imposed.
Every car that comes out of a line is virtually identical, and therefore we have control over the conditions. Every car is a repeat of the conditions.
For instance, without astronomy there is no way to scientifically demonstrate the necessity for dark matter to exist. We would have no control over the necessary conditions.
Controlled conditions are NOT necessarily needed for scientific experiments, and none of this has anything to do with positive proof. In science, an experiment is valid if it predicts repeatable results. Controlled conditions are not necessary. For instance, Einstein showed the validity of his Relativity theory by predicting gravitational lensing. During an eclipse, he was able to show that lensing around the sun was in fact happening.
The only benefit of controlled conditions is that it helps eliminate possible alternative explanations for a given phenomenon. However, even when this method is used, positive proof in science does not exist. Everything is a matter of probability. What proof we DO have is negative proof. That is, we can rule out potential theories if evidence shows them to be invalid.
In natural science, it is often very difficult to use controlled conditions, so we study nature as it is.
"Controlled conditions are NOT necessarily needed for scientific experiments"
Experimental control IS a necessary component of science. Einstein could demonstrate gravitational lensing because the phenomenon was repeatable because the conditions are periodic and we can predict when they will repeat themselves.
We have control over the conditions by virtue of them being periodic.
Something like a miracle however, or a momentary physical anomaly
What you are saying about conditions periodic is the same thing I am saying about the predictive power of a theory. My point was simply that not all sciences require RECREATING conditions ARTIFICIALLY. If we can predict a controlled condition (such as an eclipse), it is because of another scientific theory that is capable of making such predictions. PREDICTIVE POWER is the key here. Another example is that of Black Holes. Relativity predicted their existence well before they were observed.
"Miracles" are meaningless in science, simply because by definition they cannot be studied scientifically. The word itself is meaningless, because anything that can affect the natural world must be itself a part of that world. "Miracle" is just a word we use to label phenomena that we do not yet understand. The same can be said about a "momentary physical anomaly". Nothing supernatural is necessary to explain something like this; simply more knowledge.
Another way of putting it is that anything that exists and can affect the natural world can in fact be studied, even if the means to do so are currently out of our reach. This is why the word "miracle" is simply a cop-out. Science does not assume that anything is ultimately unexplainable.
My point is that everything that exists can in theory be understood, even if we currently lack the method of doing so. This means that the "supernatural" does not exist; everything that affects the natural world also resides in the natural world, even if not within our own universe.
"This means that the 'supernatural' does not exist"
'Supernaturalism' is an epistemic assessment, it is to say that the phenomenon is infinitely beyond our natural limitations to discern. To say that no such thing can exist is a philosophical choice.
The restriction is that if something in nature isn't periodic, there is no way we can test it, even if it is a real phenomenon.
An intelligent entity that doesn't want to be found for instance, has a chance of evading our tests. Something that can freely adapt and evolve to input isn't something that can be controlled and studied.
A miracle in this case would just be something that violates our ability to predict, because it wouldn't occur within any period that we would recognize.
Yes, an intelligent entity could very well be purposefully hiding itself, being careful not to leave any evidence. However, this could be true for any number of imagined phenomena. For instance, one could suppose that unicorns exist, but are able to remain invisible to all our our testing and senses through magic. Does this give us a reason to assert that they exist? Of course not. The same is true for a deity who performs miracles and yet hides all evidence of its existence.
The fact is, everyday occurrences that the religious call "miracles" can easily be attributed to mere coincidence. Nothing happens that cannot happen, in other words. For instance, the odds of winning the lottery are fairly low, but the fact is that somebody does win it. Would it be a miracle if you won it? Hardly, provided you purchased a ticket. Does this change if you had prayed and asked to win? Of course not.
You're right, prayer just changes the way you feel about something. I'm not making a case for the rituals involved with divinity, just highlighting the limitations of science to investigate reality.
There is a chance that our intuitive abilities detect something that we can not yet rationally justify.
Yeah, but just because something may be beyond our understanding does not mean it is 'beyond nature' and therefore cannot be known or measured or even understood. By that rationale, anything we do not fully understand today could be defined as 'supernatrual.'
That's part of the reason we may not accept things that have not been directly revealed to our intuition.
If we heard someone blabbering on about a guardian unicorn that hides in the fields, either we can rationalize that this is almost like a projected dream that the person is using to cope with the complexity of an event, or that there is a genuine entity that they are relating to a concept they are familiar with.
The form of the entity isn't important, the presence of it is.
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but most have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
Good point about the difference between an Assumptive Belief and a Reasoned Belief.
And it strikes me as humorous that those who mangle the meaning of "exist" to mean nothing, yet say that their god exists, fail to realize they are themselves saying their god is nothing.
I don't know. I bet if you asked a thousand people for their definition of faith, at least ten or twenty, if not more, would reply by saying that it is to believe in something without evidence.
I don't think they deconstructed the word, given that the only scientific example they used was Brakes. Not more theoretical ones, but still a good discussion.
yes, evidence and proof are different from knowing. it is the religious who believe they know things for certain. science always allows for new or changing information.
Yes, science is revisable, but, knowledge comes from evidence and facts. "Knowing" is a vague catchall and according to the dictionary can mean a couple of things (even sexual intercourse).
"To be aware of the truth or factuality of" to me that means it can be applied to science or faith.
I disagree of course. When all the constants are the same I know I can be certain that when I flip the light switch the light bulb will shine. Whereas with faith nothing is certain, nothing is repeatable. I can agree that the universe is so big that we can't know everything or that science is revisable, but, to say that we can know nothing for certain is (in a practical everyday sense) ridiculous.
Considering those things have so many "hours of life" to their function I can be relatively certain how long they'll last, that their replacements will work when installed and how long they will last as well.
Just checked Hume on wiki. You want me to read up on and Enlightenment Philosopher?! Don't you know the Enlightenment was wrong? It's Cognitive Neuroscience now, baby! Evidence based! Not empiricism based!
you're taking science on faith. science is an educated estimate with a reasonable margin of error, it is not a divine revelation. please educate yourself about what science is and how it works, you do everyone a disservice by promoting science as infallible. all you've done is make science your god, so in effect, you've learned nothing.
My God you're obstinate. If science was as wildly uncertain and fallible as you make it out to be why would people bother to use it at all? Could it be because it works? It's repeatable? It's proven and tested? Is gravity going to stop working for no apparent reason? Trusting in good engineering is not the same as making it my god. That's a strawman argument. Basing things on evidence and testing is a far cry from making shit up an saying it's divine law.
I never claimed that it was perfect. Simply that it's effective and that (barring unforeseen circumstances) is completely reliable unlike "prayer". Please stop being so sore because you're not skilled at arguing.
you're reducing it to the level of prayer by putting faith in it. you simply put your faith in science and then proceed to live by it religiously. science is not "completely reliable", it can have errors. if you're looking for certainty, you're looking in the wrong place. only religion can give you certainty, you just have to hope that what you're certain of is actually true.
Okay, now you're just putting words in my mouth which is really weak and the last defense of a failed argument. Listen why don't you just admit you lost and go cry in your pillow.
Science is evidence based what could be more CERTAIN than that? And what is so terrifying about the word certain? Why does it make you pee your pants? LOLZ I mean you just sound silly at this point. Why pursue science if not to have a CERTAIN understanding of how things work?
Yes, well, I never said I knew everything. I just said that given the same constants proven science works every time. What's so irrational about that? For the lay person 99.99% probability is effectively a guarantee.
Here, from Merriam Webster;
Certainty 2 : the quality or state of being certain especially on the basis of evidence
that couch looks heavenly. ha...ha
me25422 1 month ago
God is real. He loves you.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 hahaha thats a good one! keep em coming!
me25422 1 month ago
As fantastic as Matt is I think it's refreshing that he for once lets Tracie speak enough on a subject to show that she is also amazing.
itsjustameme 2 months ago
indeed i agree, and i do doubt, more then most, i actraully hold zero absolutes,
but there is a difference between doubt and cherry picking arguments of others, these idios could be learning reather then arguing with even more idiotic creationists, there is simply no point whatsoever in trying to debate one
zenithar6666 4 months ago
Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creater of human intelligence.
dancingdork007 6 months ago
THE GUYS ON THIS ATEHIST EXPERIENCE ARE CHILDISH JOKES, true knowledge seekrs dont go out of there way to discredit others.
zenithar6666 7 months ago
@zenithar6666 No True Scotsman.
TheGeneralCritic 5 months ago
@zenithar6666
Idiot alert.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago 4
@zenithar6666 a true seeker of knowledge seeks to expose fallacious arguments
topperheartramada 4 months ago
I agree, to a point, i would do such exposes on my own during my study, not in a public adn clearly dead end way, these peopel are not even well versed in evolution, and they hardly EVER bring up microbiology.
I am a true seeker of knowledge, but i dont go out of my way to prove others wrong, I simply take what i agree with or waht fits the data from ohthers poitns of view without tearing them a new one for the bits i happen to agree wtih., oh well, keep up the search freind
zenithar6666 4 months ago
@zenithar6666 yeah, but they don't have to prove the other one wrong, because the other person has the burden of proof. atheists do not believe in any gods unless evidence is provided. when someone claims to have evidence, and they think it is inadequate, they try and explain why. atheism isn't about seeking knowledge. it is about not accepting fallacious claims to knowledge that theists make. also, an atheists needn't be an expert on biology or physics.
topperheartramada 4 months ago
atheism is a belief system to most, not simply a stance, dawkins goes around promoting it? which is disgusting and no better then the religous fantatics, there is simply no resolving the issue between certain people, i.e creationists, evolutions, for want of better words.
I personally am utterly unconviced and damn skeptical about evolutions power, and very very much on teh desing side of things, but ill be damned to claim where such desing may have come from, and im not ruling out anything!
zenithar6666 4 months ago
@zenithar6666 that's your problem
topperheartramada 4 months ago
@zenithar6666
Nah, it's awesome that Dawkins goes around promoting atheism. It's not disgusting. LOL
Evolution fits the evidence, and is proven, if it destroys religion, so be it! :p
jinitron 3 weeks ago
well unfortunaly, showing that things change over time neither points the way to atheism or ot relgion, boht stances are inherantly flawed since you have made a decision about something you cannot know, therefore stopped reserach into the opposite area.
also, if you think teh evidence somehow negates that fact taht the molecular level is an utter disaster in terms of explanation, then you have alot of reserach to do...
it screams design and fits the evicence for it,
zenithar6666 3 weeks ago
there is no problem with belief, as long as the belief is true.
gulbirk 8 months ago
I have officially given up arguing and questioning peoples faith. It is useless and the same thing always happens. (They believe they are right and nothing is going to convince them otherwise.) But then again, some of them don't care about being right or wrong, they just want to be happy at whatever the cost....even if that cost involves delusion....
Jammed9000 11 months ago 2
Scientology.
knowwaie 1 year ago
What about your brain? you can't examine your own brain and you know nothing about it except what you've been told. Therefore you have faith in it. How do you know that you even have a brain? is it really that much harder to have faith in God?
notw2010 1 year ago
@notw2010 You can, go to an hospital and get a brain scan, hint, hint.. You dont need to have faith about your brain, There is extensive peer reviewed literature (not just one holy book) about how to brain works, you can actually go to a lab and see a real brain and if you have the skills you can actually perform your own research if the answers dont satisfy you.
Big friggin argument from ignorance of yours #epicfail
elvigia666 1 year ago 2
@notw2010 "What about your brain? you can't examine your own brain and you know nothing about it except what you've been told. Therefore you have faith in it."
That's absurd. Do you really need to be told about how human physiology is near identical from organism to organism? You know, the necessary basis for medicine? How you can visit museums of natural history and see brains?
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@notw2010 How you could experiment with your senses to selectively shut out part of sensory experience in accordance with the "I have a brain" hypothesis. You could even take all kinds of drugs and determine that their effects are what would be expected. As well as having a brain scan done of course, but there's always the possibility that doctors just make that up.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@notw2010 "is it really that much harder to have faith in God?"
With respect to gods however, there is no agreement about what kind of model would be appropriate to test the idea, no model has ever passed any kind of test and many fail even the basic test that the model doesn't contradict itself, and they are therefore either wrong or useless. So yes, it is much harder to believe in gods. Although hard is perhaps a bad word here. No belief should be strived for. You believe because of evidence
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Some science has been proven to be wrong, and has to be re-constructed to fit the ideas that needs to be proven. Faith has yet to be disproven and will not be disproven until it's too late for those unbelievers.
chica0616 1 year ago
@chica0616 That's one of the purposes of science, prove itself wrong, change, adapt, it is an advantage, not a weakness.
Faith doesnt have to be disproved, just like the lake ness moster, unicorns or Thor, what you are doing is shifting the burden of proof, that's a butt-ugly and invalid way to use reason.
elvigia666 1 year ago 2
@elvigia666 There lies the intelligence of someone comparing a spiritual being to a physical and make believe object or thing, how do these ignorant statements obtain so many thumbs up? Are there that many ignorant and dense people in the world? I should consider not answering these poor "God doesn't exist" responses.
chica0616 4 weeks ago
@chica0616 "Faith has yet to be disproven and will not be disproven until it's too late for those unbelievers."
For most religions, certainly all the Abrahamic ones, that's complete nonsense. The texts that are the basis for the god definitions are trivially self refuting through contradiction in addition to making claims that conflict with observation of reality. If you've somehow managed to avoid all the literature that shows this and can't see it yourself - that's your problem.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro Christianity is not what I consider a religion, I consider it a faith, point blank. You cannot make any certainty about atheism, it's just an ignorant hunch. But I can as an individual claim all certainty of a powerful God that has intervened in every aspect of my life. You however will never take the steps to test my God's power, no you'll just use your life to hold onto a hunch with absolutely no way of validity.
chica0616 4 weeks ago
@chica0616 However, there's another class of "faith" - belief in unfalsifiable claims. Such claims are simply without meaning as their truth and falsehood can not be determined by any method, and consequently a reality where they are false is indistinguishable from one where they are true. Such claims are "not even wrong" in the words of Wolfgang Pauli. They have the worst conceivable epistemic status and belief in them is the epistemic equivalent of being infected with black death.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro Untrue once again, the only way to test your faith, and being that none of you atheists are willing to do so, your journey lies pointless. The less than intelligent ploys of comparing a spiritual being to physical unicorns and flying spaghetti men is far beyond unintelligent. So let us suppose that God is real and that the hunches of atheism are incorrect, where does this leave your destiny?
chica0616 4 weeks ago
@chica0616 which faith is that? there are thousands of them.
topperheartramada 4 months ago
i am an atheist. but i believe that you do have faith in car breaks but it is not the same definition of the word faith. it is an equivication. in the same way i believe it is true that you can stop a skunk from smelling by cutting off its nose......but i dont think cutting a skunks nose off will stop it emmitting an unpleasant odour
robertwc82 1 year ago
Look up "what about creation" for a video covering this subject.
lolbewbz 1 year ago
People who have faith in religion and science aren't exercising "reasoned belief." If someone doesn't bother to look at evidence then their belief in science is still faith, since faith is belief without evidence.
If you tell me the world is millions of years old and I believe you because I like you and don't look at evidence, that's faith.
The difference is that with science one can look up evidence and change one's faith to reason while with religion one CANNOT believe without faith.
dangerics 1 year ago
More from the Redneck Community of Austin, it's a laugh this show. Are these people for real? It's gotta be a gag.
TheTrashytramp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
baccaratbargaineq 1 year ago
I accept science that I understand. I do not accept science that I do not understand. I have tried to understand Quantum Mechanics, I only understand a minutia of it, maybe not even that, so I cannot accept it. I understand religions to be manmade and there is every evidence to believe that God is also manmade, therefore I am an Atheist.
47saeed 1 year ago 3
I would say that I have trust in science
SCAREDBANANA 1 year ago 3
The point theyre talking about there is rly important. Too many believers think their faith doesnt need justification, they think its no problem if believes arent justified cause thats sort of the nature of believing. But this is nonsense, they just want it to be like this. In fact, every believe needs a motivation, and it sucks that for many people their indoctrination is their only motivation.
Todestuete 1 year ago
I smell rooting flesh. I am jon may and I live. U aliens can et my cosmonuts.
jonmayLIVES 1 year ago
sick couch
p0lyphemu5 1 year ago
faith as in believing vs facts you have the possibility to trust in
its all about dialectic definitions.... too many people mix that upand talk past each other....... god-believer are virtually ignorant when it comes to accurate definitions and their usage.
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
this is a problem that mixes up definition for Generations and its down to bad education that this problem still exists and is missused.
in day to day language it allways present.
even athiest use terms like ..... for Gods sake! keeping religious terms in present day to day life and with that alive.
It pisses me off, because there is no real base of communicating accurate with one and another.....
LastReplaySC 1 year ago
ya matt is the greatest speaker of this TIMe! he can be equal to Steven hawking!
samgee2007 1 year ago
Faith is believing in what you know to be false.
ndyt 1 year ago
@ndyt no its beleiving without any evidence i think its more like wishfull ignorance not willfull but wishfull
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420, I think on some level just about every believer knows their religion is a sham. How much that understanding is buried in their minds varies from person to person.
ndyt 1 year ago 8
@ndyt yeh i agree unless there completely insane
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Does anyone have the transcription of this video?It's not necessary the whole episode ( for now lol) but at least this video.
djalessandromagno 1 year ago
you guys are awesome thank you for all your human reasoning
sambricky 2 years ago 3
equivocation!
mbturner625 2 years ago
Fuckin' RUSH!
CallumJStewart 2 years ago 3
The stuff that Matt says about faith here is also well applied to the term "belief."
Macrochenia 2 years ago
When science begins to close the gap between what we know & don't know, religion starts to run & hide, playing semantics, and taking refuge in any way it can from the juggernaut of reason and truth.
It's gotten to a point where it's so ridiculous that it makes no sense to even bother arguing with a religious person anymore; it's like arguing with a 6 year-old about the existence of Santa Claus.
ejdf870 2 years ago 49
The analogy you offered in your last sentence is not quite accurate. You could at least reason with a 6 year-old. ;-)
TheChamp1971 2 years ago 5
@ejdf870 However to say that science is the only truth is self contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. Its a self defeating philosophical assumption. there are things we know more certainly through introspection than we know from the social sciences.
41RobLow 1 year ago
@ejdf870 @41RobLow For example I know I have free will on the basis of my introspection and no studies in the social sciences will convince me otherwise. There is no question that science does teach us many important things about the natural world but the real question is do these things point to anything beyond themselves and the answer is yes Science teaches us may true things and some of those true things point toward God.
41RobLow 1 year ago
example I know I have free will on the basis of my introspection and no studies in the social sciences will convince me otherwise. There is no question that science does teach us many important things about the world but the real question is do these things point to anything beyond themselvesScience teaches us may true things and some of those true things point toward God.
41RobLow 1 year ago
Actualy religion dose not run and hide if anything it gets involved.. srry but your wrong it is in no way compared to arguing santa clause ...and anyways whats so bad with beleiving in god ..beileving in god helps and u atheists who are dedicated in proving god wrong you are the one doing the bad trying to prve what you think is whats right...like the atheist experiance?...what the butt! do somthing more productive with your life then trying to disprove god and making yourself mad at god
magicgeorge361 1 year ago
@magicgeorge361 actually its exactly the same. both have no evidence for them and people think they exist. kids eventually figure out hes not real. whats wrong with believing? nothing really except when you try to influence scietific pogress which is what usually ends up happening. funny you should mention try to prove god wrong. thats good science. in science you always try to prove your theory wrong. its how you find out whats REAL. we dont need to though. theres nothing to test with "god". .
timmy47 1 year ago
@ejdf870 actually science has given me more proof that God does exist. Like what?? well , just look how the universe and life work intelligently, it behave intelligently, all more proof of a intelligent design and not by random chance.
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl No one is claiming it happened by mere "chance" (like rolling dice). Instead, this 'order' and 'intelligence' you notice is nature itself. No need for the abrahamic God of the Bible that answers prayers and passes judgment.
ejdf870 1 year ago
@ejdf870 nature itself??? I think it's more than that
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl Well I believe to make any claim that something SUPERNATURAL intervened, you need significant proof for that. Simply saying "I think" is no more proof than i think i can fly when I jump off a building.
frenchmanjohn 1 year ago
@frenchmanjohn well, I'm not crazy but I have had a supernatural experience and so have millions of people around the world.. Now there are few who are delusional .... I think there is enough proof of life after death but some people of power doesnt want us to be aware of it
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl - how do you know it was supernatural when it's impossible to test the supernatural?
DuTriDu 1 year ago
@DuTriDu again there are millions of cases of the supernatural ghost and other phenomenon but for some reason science ignores these cases.
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl - So you're saying a supernatural event is observable in the natural world? If so, how is that event supernatural? Surely what you mean is 'unexplained (natural) phenomenon'. It's quite a leap to observe something unexplained and claim it to be something that is essentially a fictional construct, like a supernatural realm. Even if ghosts do exist, they cannot be supernatural if we are able to observe them or their effects.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
@DuTriDu why not?? there are so many things science cannot explain or yet to know... be a bit more open-minded is my only suggestion
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl - Because they would be manifesting in our real universe and would need to obey the laws of the natural world for us to see them. Just because we may not have discovered everything about how reality works, it doesn't mean that we can just 'make stuff up' about the bits we don't know and expect to progress anywhere.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
@DuTriDu I doubt millions of people around the world who have seen or experienced ghost are all made up , sure you have your few fake stories but most are legit... becuz I myself seen this and I'm not crazy nor delusional
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl - Like you say, you and other people claim to have seen these phenomena. That tells me that these events are not supernatural. It's as simple as that. If you can see it or feel it, it's not supernatural. I don't doubt what you or other people have seen/experienced, I merely doubt your conclusions.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
@DuTriDu whatever it is or whatever you wanna call it to me it is proof of a afterlife that there is something more than just this physical world.
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl - Then your standards of evidence are too low to be sensible. And I agree that there is more than just the physical world that we can detect at present. I also know that because we can't detect it, it is impossible to give it any meaningful attributes whilst remaining honest.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl people comes to different conclusions, maybe there are millions of people who've seen weird things and concluded.. ghosts !!!!! but what about the other BILLIONS who have concluded something very different? Humans are very easily tricked to look at the few times something happen and conclude something from it while forgetting that it's just a small amount in the whole picture which implies it's a misunderstanding or conclusion.
xxRockst4r 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl Example: You have some colors and a canvas... you just let the colors "hit the fan" randomly, then someone else comes along and says "what a beautiful artwork, this must have been made by a true genius"
MichaelLV99 1 year ago
@ejdf870 I think all the opposite.. Science have shown more proof of an intelligent design rather than some big bang theory... do your research before commenting...
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl In the left corner, weighing 98lbs- the contender IIC4LOSII
and in the right corner, weighing 346lbs, we have the undisputed champion of the world- The Majority of the World's scientists.
Gee, wonder who would win?
ejdf870 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl Hahahahahaha. No
matthewlane 1 year ago
@IlC4RL0SIl ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NO.
chiaromontestephen 1 year ago
@ejdf870 Except...a 6-year-old will eventually admit that Santa isn't real.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
I wanna be like Matt someday (or Tracy--she's badass too)
KLinZ3 2 years ago 32
@KLinZ3 so you are not sure about your own sex?
topperheartramada 4 months ago
What happened to this show?
nidodson 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" - New video on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Go fuck an horse in the ass.
OneStonedBastard 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
C'mon don't thumb me down, atheistfriends spams his pathetic shit everywhere.
OneStonedBastard 2 years ago
Yeah, I pretty much agree with stealspell. Even if we do have limited understanding of something, that does not mean it cannot be known. It is just beyond us. (at this moment) But I think it is dangerous to place something "beyond the realm of ever knowing."
Dyakki 2 years ago 2
freakin david hume...
EnhancementSmoker 2 years ago
Yeah, but just because something may be beyond our understanding does not mean it is 'beyond nature' and therefore cannot be known or measured or even understood. By that rationale, anything we do not fully understand today could be defined as 'supernatrual.'
Dyakki 2 years ago
As I've said before, "supernaturalism" is just an epistemological assessment of the know-ability of reality.
Yes, you could go to the extremes and claim that anything currently unknown is unknowable, and on the flip side you could say that everything is knowable. Or, you could do as I do and remark at the fact that a fly could never understand quantum physics in the same light as we do and therefore extrapolate there are things that our current biological forms cannot ever understand.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"... therefore extrapolate there are things that our current biological forms cannot ever understand."
You're making a big assumption claiming that. I would agree that 'our current biological forms' cannot perceive all things, but understanding has a completely different connotation. We may never be able to perceive the 4th dimension but that doesn't stop us from talking about it and trying to understand it. Perception is one thing; understanding is another.
stealspell 2 years ago
Can a fly make understand what you are feeling right now in a context that is relevant to it? Or can we agree that there are concepts and depths of reality which are far beyond the fly's mental capabilities?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Can a fly make understand..."
Flies are not sapient. Much of what a fly does is a response to external and internal stimuli. Humans can make judgements; flies cannot. You're fly analogy just won't fly :D
stealspell 2 years ago 2
From a "hyper-sapient" species' point of view maybe we don't seem to be freethinking entities either :P
There's no way you can just make some arbitrary invisible line that dictates whether or not a creature can make logical judgments. I'd say that it's just ignorance on our part to assume that we are infinitely better than a fly. Is really that unbelievable that we may have tricked ourselves into thinking we can do and understand anything? I think there's still room to grow and evolve
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"From a "hyper-sapient" species' point of view.."
You're funny you know that :D WTF did you get 'hyper-sapient species' from? This is science fiction! Anyway, I still thought it was funny; in a good way :D
"make some arbitrary invisible line that dictates whether or not a creature can make logical judgments." We call it sapience. Are you saying flies are sapient? Is this another sci-fi thing? :D
"..tricked ourselves into thinking.." I have no idea. But you're thinking too much sci-fi.
stealspell 2 years ago
"Are you saying flies are sapient?"
Yes, I would say they are negligibly sapient, but nonetheless not void of sapience. We make the call that they have negligible sapience based on our standards, but what about a species which is far advanced from us? Would they too consider lower lifeforms negligibly self-aware? Would we fit into that category for them?
Sure, it's sci-fi at the moment, but it does have practical implications as any good sci-fi does :P
Ephemerance 2 years ago
I like the fact that you have a peculiar imagination Ephemerance.
As Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
stealspell 2 years ago
i could be wrong...but i believe the word you both are looking for is "sentient"...."sentient"
amsterstorm 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith, n. -- belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel.
In other words, deliberate idiocy.
rumble54daddyo 2 years ago
It's a "tu quoque" argument, which of course is one of the classic logical fallacies.
middlekk 2 years ago
Still doesnt change the fact xtians fail to do what their religion teaches, they a hypocrites and disobey their imaginary god.
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
That argument about faith and brakes is just silly. We know our car will start. We don't have faith. We have knowledge that it starts everyday. Why? Because we built it to start everyday. So faith is replaced by expectation. We can test this all the time. He he, every morning.
Domzdream 2 years ago
"We know our car will start."
Actually, 'we' don't. In that case, you are making an statement about the future, in which case, I'm not sure if you actually 'know'.
If we were to define faith as : Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; here is what we can conclude.
The difference between a religious faith and a scientific faith is supporting evidence which make the argument either strong or weak. They're both inductive, but polar.
stealspell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Does My Father Love Me?" - A look at how Atheists and Christians interpret the same evidence very differently. Watch it on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So, in the 9 minutes of the video, you could sum the video down into the concept:
religious faith is a confidence in the validity of a philosophical view,
while logical faith is a confidence in the probability within a philosophical view.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
i think they're trying to say that there is not "religious faith" or "logical faith" . But faith and logic are two diff things.
Logic is based on reason while Faith is not.
I use logic and reasoning when trusting that my brakes will work. Not blind faith that my car will magically stop.
highridazwakeskate 2 years ago
"Faith" in car brakes, is the conscious investment in the probability of something happening (within the context of what you know about the car).
But, you do have faith that your car mechanic is giving you valid information about your car brakes, and if it's a sketchy mechanic, you have blind faith that they are giving you viable information to base probabilities off of.
When there is insufficient information to draw a conclusion, you must use blind faith to resolve a question.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Merriam-Webster 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
-Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Therefore if you have a sketchy mechanic then yes you have no proof the brakes will work. I know my mechanic though. And I'm using logic to trust my mechanic anyway based on his profession which provides proof of his mechanical knowledge.
But brakes in general have been proven to work so I do not rely on faith for my brakes
highridazwakeskate 2 years ago
You have reasonable control over the parameters, so yes, you have some level of 'proof' that your brakes will work.
But there are an uncountable number of things that you won't have control over, and might find yourself having faith in a certain outcome (e.g. optimism).
And when it comes to axiomatic information, by the definition of faith you supplied, you require 'faith' in the ability of science to correlate to ultimate reality (supposing you were a proponent of metaphysical naturalism).
Ephemerance 2 years ago
".. uncountable number of things that you won't have control over, and might find yourself having faith in a certain outcome."
Damn dude I've already aknowledged that there are an uncountable number of things that can happen in any situation.
But it is Logical that my brakes will work RIGHT NOW.
Knowing my own truck it is also Logical to assume that these random things wont hinder my brakes. Not faith. Even if somthing does hinder my brakes my decison to use them was based on logic.
highridazwakeskate 2 years ago
Btw you can go into the situation by faith or logic. It depends on the person. For example if you have never seen a car or a simple brake system and someone tells you to "push a pedal and you will stop." This would be a time that you would rely on faith. But this is like the mechanic situation. You can come up with all sorts off sub scenarios with all sorts of "what ifs" but the bottom line is:
Brakes have been proven to work so I do not rely on faith for my brakes.
highridazwakeskate 2 years ago
Proving something requires control over that something. Just as you may initially have faith that your mechanic is giving you proper directions for how to use a brake pedal, until you have control over that pedal to general personal proof that the pedal does what the mechanic claims.
Without control over a physical property or mechanism, we cannot generate 'proof' one way or the other of how a claim relates to it. You require faith in any determinations you make when answering such questions.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Proving something requires control over that something." not true
Proof-The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Therefore if a car comes out of the manufacturer and it is evident that a brake system is present it is logical to assume the brakes will stop the car.
highridazwakeskate 2 years ago
Actually I'd define proof a little differently, since it only truly exists in math. If something can be proven to be true, that would mean that it being false is impossible. I'm not sure what Ephemerance meant by "control" though.
At any rate I prefer to say "proven beyond reasonable doubt when dealing with anything other than mathematical axioms. :)
burchdc 2 years ago
By 'control' I mean that you must be able to re-establish the conditions in order to test the validity of something.
Without the ability to understand physical phenomena in a scientific context, an experiment must be repeatable.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
We have control over how a car manufacturer operates, the rules that apply, the legislation and standards imposed.
Every car that comes out of a line is virtually identical, and therefore we have control over the conditions. Every car is a repeat of the conditions.
For instance, without astronomy there is no way to scientifically demonstrate the necessity for dark matter to exist. We would have no control over the necessary conditions.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Controlled conditions are NOT necessarily needed for scientific experiments, and none of this has anything to do with positive proof. In science, an experiment is valid if it predicts repeatable results. Controlled conditions are not necessary. For instance, Einstein showed the validity of his Relativity theory by predicting gravitational lensing. During an eclipse, he was able to show that lensing around the sun was in fact happening.
burchdc 2 years ago
The only benefit of controlled conditions is that it helps eliminate possible alternative explanations for a given phenomenon. However, even when this method is used, positive proof in science does not exist. Everything is a matter of probability. What proof we DO have is negative proof. That is, we can rule out potential theories if evidence shows them to be invalid.
In natural science, it is often very difficult to use controlled conditions, so we study nature as it is.
burchdc 2 years ago
"Controlled conditions are NOT necessarily needed for scientific experiments"
Experimental control IS a necessary component of science. Einstein could demonstrate gravitational lensing because the phenomenon was repeatable because the conditions are periodic and we can predict when they will repeat themselves.
We have control over the conditions by virtue of them being periodic.
Something like a miracle however, or a momentary physical anomaly
Ephemerance 2 years ago
-- can't be reproduced unless we understand the conditions that brought forth the effect.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
What you are saying about conditions periodic is the same thing I am saying about the predictive power of a theory. My point was simply that not all sciences require RECREATING conditions ARTIFICIALLY. If we can predict a controlled condition (such as an eclipse), it is because of another scientific theory that is capable of making such predictions. PREDICTIVE POWER is the key here. Another example is that of Black Holes. Relativity predicted their existence well before they were observed.
burchdc 2 years ago
"Miracles" are meaningless in science, simply because by definition they cannot be studied scientifically. The word itself is meaningless, because anything that can affect the natural world must be itself a part of that world. "Miracle" is just a word we use to label phenomena that we do not yet understand. The same can be said about a "momentary physical anomaly". Nothing supernatural is necessary to explain something like this; simply more knowledge.
burchdc 2 years ago
Another way of putting it is that anything that exists and can affect the natural world can in fact be studied, even if the means to do so are currently out of our reach. This is why the word "miracle" is simply a cop-out. Science does not assume that anything is ultimately unexplainable.
burchdc 2 years ago
Something that is beyond our attempts to predict and understand is not necessarily non-existent.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
My point is that everything that exists can in theory be understood, even if we currently lack the method of doing so. This means that the "supernatural" does not exist; everything that affects the natural world also resides in the natural world, even if not within our own universe.
burchdc 2 years ago
"This means that the 'supernatural' does not exist"
'Supernaturalism' is an epistemic assessment, it is to say that the phenomenon is infinitely beyond our natural limitations to discern. To say that no such thing can exist is a philosophical choice.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
The restriction is that if something in nature isn't periodic, there is no way we can test it, even if it is a real phenomenon.
An intelligent entity that doesn't want to be found for instance, has a chance of evading our tests. Something that can freely adapt and evolve to input isn't something that can be controlled and studied.
A miracle in this case would just be something that violates our ability to predict, because it wouldn't occur within any period that we would recognize.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Yes, an intelligent entity could very well be purposefully hiding itself, being careful not to leave any evidence. However, this could be true for any number of imagined phenomena. For instance, one could suppose that unicorns exist, but are able to remain invisible to all our our testing and senses through magic. Does this give us a reason to assert that they exist? Of course not. The same is true for a deity who performs miracles and yet hides all evidence of its existence.
burchdc 2 years ago 3
The fact is, everyday occurrences that the religious call "miracles" can easily be attributed to mere coincidence. Nothing happens that cannot happen, in other words. For instance, the odds of winning the lottery are fairly low, but the fact is that somebody does win it. Would it be a miracle if you won it? Hardly, provided you purchased a ticket. Does this change if you had prayed and asked to win? Of course not.
burchdc 2 years ago
You're right, prayer just changes the way you feel about something. I'm not making a case for the rituals involved with divinity, just highlighting the limitations of science to investigate reality.
There is a chance that our intuitive abilities detect something that we can not yet rationally justify.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, but just because something may be beyond our understanding does not mean it is 'beyond nature' and therefore cannot be known or measured or even understood. By that rationale, anything we do not fully understand today could be defined as 'supernatrual.'
Dyakki 2 years ago
That's part of the reason we may not accept things that have not been directly revealed to our intuition.
If we heard someone blabbering on about a guardian unicorn that hides in the fields, either we can rationalize that this is almost like a projected dream that the person is using to cope with the complexity of an event, or that there is a genuine entity that they are relating to a concept they are familiar with.
The form of the entity isn't important, the presence of it is.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
I made this comment my facebook status. Well said!
Eshto 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but most have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Theists are idiots...
pyrix 2 years ago
Most religious theists perhaps. But as for theists in general?
I don't think that one's philosophical choices indicates the depth of their mental abilities.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Yeah let me rephrase that. Abrahamic theists are idiots.
pyrix 2 years ago
Good point about the difference between an Assumptive Belief and a Reasoned Belief.
And it strikes me as humorous that those who mangle the meaning of "exist" to mean nothing, yet say that their god exists, fail to realize they are themselves saying their god is nothing.
MultiSteveB 2 years ago 2
I don't know. I bet if you asked a thousand people for their definition of faith, at least ten or twenty, if not more, would reply by saying that it is to believe in something without evidence.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
Indeed, and that is the dictionary definition, according to my chambers.
hackenbollox 2 years ago
I don't think they deconstructed the word, given that the only scientific example they used was Brakes. Not more theoretical ones, but still a good discussion.
jameshanley40 2 years ago
Faith is certainty without proof.
Science is proof without certainty.
Xeletoph 2 years ago 7
bingo.
neomp5 2 years ago
Comment removed
xSWITCHBLADEx3 2 years ago
Comment removed
hossrex 2 years ago
Matt is essentially outlining the Equivocation Fallacy.
TheDoubtingApproach 2 years ago
You can have FAITH in a god and you can KNOW that the light switch will work!
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
science isn't about knowing, science is about evidence and calculations and probabilities, not certainties. faith is about certainties.
neomp5 2 years ago
I'm at a loss here. Evidence and proof are somehow different from knowing? Faith is belief without evidence, in the face of uncertainty.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
yes, evidence and proof are different from knowing. it is the religious who believe they know things for certain. science always allows for new or changing information.
neomp5 2 years ago
Yes, science is revisable, but, knowledge comes from evidence and facts. "Knowing" is a vague catchall and according to the dictionary can mean a couple of things (even sexual intercourse).
"To be aware of the truth or factuality of" to me that means it can be applied to science or faith.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
apperently you've missed a core idea of science, that nothing can be known for certain.
neomp5 2 years ago
I disagree of course. When all the constants are the same I know I can be certain that when I flip the light switch the light bulb will shine. Whereas with faith nothing is certain, nothing is repeatable. I can agree that the universe is so big that we can't know everything or that science is revisable, but, to say that we can know nothing for certain is (in a practical everyday sense) ridiculous.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
you need to catch up on your hume.
neomp5 2 years ago
Sure, while I do that I'll make sure to be uncertain whether my light and phone will work and whether my car will start.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
then you won't be nearly so dissapointed when your light bulb burns out, your phone battery dies, and your car needs repair.
neomp5 2 years ago
Considering those things have so many "hours of life" to their function I can be relatively certain how long they'll last, that their replacements will work when installed and how long they will last as well.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
Just checked Hume on wiki. You want me to read up on and Enlightenment Philosopher?! Don't you know the Enlightenment was wrong? It's Cognitive Neuroscience now, baby! Evidence based! Not empiricism based!
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
you could always pray that your light will always work. then you'll know for certain. and still be wrong.
neomp5 2 years ago
Why would I have to pray when I can be certain it will work for the lifetime of the unit thanks to the knowledge of Science?
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
you're taking science on faith. science is an educated estimate with a reasonable margin of error, it is not a divine revelation. please educate yourself about what science is and how it works, you do everyone a disservice by promoting science as infallible. all you've done is make science your god, so in effect, you've learned nothing.
neomp5 2 years ago
My God you're obstinate. If science was as wildly uncertain and fallible as you make it out to be why would people bother to use it at all? Could it be because it works? It's repeatable? It's proven and tested? Is gravity going to stop working for no apparent reason? Trusting in good engineering is not the same as making it my god. That's a strawman argument. Basing things on evidence and testing is a far cry from making shit up an saying it's divine law.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
science is the best thing we have. that does not mean it's perfect as you're claiming. please go learn something about science.
neomp5 2 years ago
I never claimed that it was perfect. Simply that it's effective and that (barring unforeseen circumstances) is completely reliable unlike "prayer". Please stop being so sore because you're not skilled at arguing.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
you're reducing it to the level of prayer by putting faith in it. you simply put your faith in science and then proceed to live by it religiously. science is not "completely reliable", it can have errors. if you're looking for certainty, you're looking in the wrong place. only religion can give you certainty, you just have to hope that what you're certain of is actually true.
neomp5 2 years ago
Okay, now you're just putting words in my mouth which is really weak and the last defense of a failed argument. Listen why don't you just admit you lost and go cry in your pillow.
Science is evidence based what could be more CERTAIN than that? And what is so terrifying about the word certain? Why does it make you pee your pants? LOLZ I mean you just sound silly at this point. Why pursue science if not to have a CERTAIN understanding of how things work?
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
i see you're taking the approach of trying to win the argument by simply declaring that you already won it.
neomp5 2 years ago
Isn't the certainty of science and its evidence based approach what beat the creationists at the Dover trials and every single time since?
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
no. it's the evidence of science that beats out the arguments of faith. evidence is not certainty, it's probability. faith is certainty.
a wise man never knows all, only fools know everything.
neomp5 2 years ago
Yes, well, I never said I knew everything. I just said that given the same constants proven science works every time. What's so irrational about that? For the lay person 99.99% probability is effectively a guarantee.
Here, from Merriam Webster;
Certainty 2 : the quality or state of being certain especially on the basis of evidence
Good enough for me.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago