The Song Fight Bulletin Board

jimtyrrell wrote: But for someone to refute the existence of God because His existence cannot be proven is as dodgy as someone saying He does exist simply because it cannot be disproved. Either stance seems to require equal amounts of faith.

really i think jim just said one of the things that i've always sort of believed... that it takes an equal amount of faith to believe either... i guess it's mostly just preference in what you choose... i'm not ruling out scientific stuff... i just won't take that as an absolute to being no God... cause i don't think nothing has proven that...

Mostess wrote:

roymond wrote:Well, there's this little thing about scientists...they may be stuburn, but when faced with proof they change their beliefs. That's one thing that differentiates science from religion/faith. Proof. Weird, huh?

You need to (re)read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" or perhaps just Sagan's "Contact."

The line between science and faith isn't as thick as you think. In my experience, individual scientists are loathe to retract their pet theories, and deeply entrenched in their little enclave's way of thinking. Evidence is convincing, but only when it is interpreted. And interpretation requires background understanding. And background understanding has to be, to some extent, taken on faith.

I totally agree. You took those lines out of context. I then went on with "When evidence comes along that challenges a theory, people run with it and re-establish what's considered the current view. This goes on and on. Sort of a discussion or collaboration."

I love it when we hold onto our faith in a particular belief. It often leads to a new discovery, and even if we eventually admit to an alternative "truth" in the original area, now we're onto something new. We learn more from being wrong than from being right (more than in the obvious sense).

Mostess wrote:

Kapitano wrote:"Yes he could, and he could lift it anyway".

In other words, "no."

I've always understood that "God does not make 2 and 2 be 5". Some theological philosopher (Descartes?) once said that. Seems reasonable.

Them: "Can God make a stone he can't lift?"
Me: "Yes"
Them: *excited* "Well, can he lift it, then? Huh? Can he?"
Me: "Hold on... the question is "Can God lift a stone he can't lift?", right?"
Them: "... yeah..."
Me: "... is this a trick? Of course he can't. You just said he can't!"
Them: "Well, then he can't do everything, can he?"
Me: "No, just not STUPID things, dipshit"

Asking "Can God lift a stone he can't lift" is the same as saying "Can God make 2 and 2 = 5": there is an inherent contradiction in both questions.

jimtyrrell wrote:But for someone to refute the existence of God because His existence cannot be proven is as dodgy as someone saying He does exist simply because it cannot be disproved. Either stance seems to require equal amounts of faith.

I think the biggest problem is that when people talk about god, it's not apples to apples. Everyone has a different definition. So when one says "god exists" they could be speaking about about a wildly different thing than I am when I say I don't believe god exists.

A spiritual sense of awareness and connectivity with all life...I think this exists and could be attributed to god

A moral responsibility to love and support your neighbor, both locally and gloally...I think this exists and could be attributed to god

An appreciation of life and its mysteries and a respect for same...I think this exists and could be attributed to god

That we can wrap these sorts of things up into a package and call it god...I can go along with that, but to say there is a being or intelligence or some sort of entity that bestows upon the universe its rules, guidance, wrath, forgiveness...that's in our mind. If it helps us get through life, fine (and I know people personally who I fully recognize that their faith saved their lives). However, it gets to a point where an overwhelming lack of evidence has to be questioned. To say it can exist because it can't be proved otherwise is just silly. Santa. The Devil. Easter Bunnies. Tooth Fairies. They all have a good deal of faith behind their existence.

roymond wrote: I totally agree. You took those lines out of context. I then went on with "When evidence comes along that challenges a theory, people run with it and re-establish what's considered the current view. This goes on and on. Sort of a discussion or collaboration."

Fair enough. I saw that, too, and I still think it mischaracterizes the nature and history of science. But you're right; science does evolve in response to additions to the empirical evidence. Whether it tends to march "forward" (toward truth) or "sideways" (in different but non-superior directions) is a matter of debate. Kuhn says the latter.

But it's also unfair to ignore the similar shifting of religous thought. The basic tenets of religion remain constant, but vast gulfs of interpretation and understanding continually appear and disappear between various religious factions. The map of religions today is quite different from the one 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago. These shifts are due to political and social forces as well as actual religious thinking and interpretation. But (my big point is), that's true of science, too.

roymond wrote:That we can wrap these sorts of things up into a package and call it god...I can go along with that, but to say there is a being or intelligence or some sort of entity that bestows upon the universe its rules, guidance, wrath, forgiveness...that's in our mind. If it helps us get through life, fine (and I know people personally who I fully recognize that their faith saved their lives). However, it gets to a point where an overwhelming lack of evidence has to be questioned. To say it can exist because it can't be proved otherwise is just silly. Santa. The Devil. Easter Bunnies. Tooth Fairies. They all have a good deal of faith behind their existence.

Two minutes ago, I had a kazoo in my pocket. I took no pictures, and in no way documented it. But here I am, telling you about it. I cannot prove that it happened, but my inability to do so does not make it untrue. I personally believe that it happened, but that alone doesn't make it true. It's true because it's true.

I can't imagine any sort of evidence that would be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. The whole concept is both unprovable AND undisprovable. Saying that God isn't "real" because it can't be proven is the exact same logic that people use to say that God *is* real because it can't be disproven. It's faith, just in reverse.

Mostess wrote:But it's also unfair to ignore the similar shifting of religous thought. The basic tenets of religion remain constant, but vast gulfs of interpretation and understanding continually appear and disappear between various religious factions. The map of religions today is quite different from the one 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago. These shifts are due to political and social forces as well as actual religious thinking and interpretation. But (my big point is), that's true of science, too.

I think we're on exactly the same page. We just bring a different perspective and vocabulary.

roymond wrote:To say it can exist because it can't be proved otherwise is just silly.

I think instead of 'silly' you meant to say 'necessarily true'. If something can't be disproved that is exactly the same thing as saying it can exist. Exactly the same.

roymond wrote: I think the biggest problem is that when people talk about god, it's not apples to apples. Everyone has a different definition. So when one says "god exists" they could be speaking about about a wildly different thing than I am when I say I don't believe god exists.

The biggest problem is when people talk about Him as if they know His nature when it's only what they believe.

Puce wrote:

roymond wrote:To say it can exist because it can't be proved otherwise is just silly.

I think instead of 'silly' you meant to say 'necessarily true'. If something can't be disproved that is exactly the same thing as saying it can exist. Exactly the same.

My words aren't standing on their own, without the preceding sentence that you left off. Yes, you are so correct. However the point was about whether one's beliefs are justified simply because something can exist...even against all rational indicators.

15-16 puzzle wrote:Two minutes ago, I had a kazoo in my pocket

This will be my optional lyric challenge for next week's fight.

roymond wrote:

Puce wrote:

roymond wrote:To say it can exist because it can't be proved otherwise is just silly.

I think instead of 'silly' you meant to say 'necessarily true'. If something can't be disproved that is exactly the same thing as saying it can exist. Exactly the same.

My words aren't standing on their own, without the preceding sentence that you left off. Yes, you are so correct. However the point was about whether one's beliefs are justified simply because something can exist...even against all rational indicators.

Ok, I get ya'. An important tool that I love is parsimony. A theory is 'unparsimonious' when it could technically be true but it doesn't make any sense (contradicts empirical observations). Such theories are considered 'worse' (not wrong, just crappier) than simpler theories that serve the same purpose. In fact, way back when this thread first got high-jacked I was griping and bitching about needlessly complex popular metaphysics that doesn't make a lick of sense when you stop to think about it. I don't believe faith and science are a good mix.

The problem with parsimony is that is often misconstrued as "the shortest theory is the best one" (the shortest unified theory-of-everything is "God did it"). A theory's 'order of parsimony' is calculated using something called 'propositional calculus,' and I've never been bored enough to learn it.

However, I am apparently bored enough to talk about it. 8)

Puce wrote: However, I am apparently bored enough to talk about it. 8)

You're stimulating and provocative. I'm not bored. Thanks.

c hack wrote:The biggest problem is when people talk about Him as if they know His nature when it's only what they believe.

Kind of like using "Him" and "His" instead of "God" and "God's"?

EDIT: Or were you being subtly ironic?

i'm not saying i believe just cause it can't be proven otherwise...

but both of them are just theories... and to me... believing somethin' had somethin' to do with this... wether it be a big spiritual field of sorts or an actual figure of sorts i don't know... i don't try to understand that... cause to me it's just not somethin' i can do...
and i know that...

but it's easier for me to believe somethin' sort of lead everything to this point...
instead of everything just being one big accident...

i don't know how my stances are in any one way... but i just believe there is something more.... wether it is flat out 'scientific fact' or 'not'...

Epistemology is all very interesting, but it isn't really the point. A person's choice of religion or cosmogeny wouldn't matter much if it didn't commit them to other, more concrete beliefs.

So, a christian might believe the universe was created in seven days, or that god caused the big bang. What's important is that this ties them to accepting the 'word of god' (ie the bible, or rather its sanctioned interpreters) as authoritative, on matters of diet, custom, marriage, sexuality, the death penalty, and all kinds of personal freedom.

I'm not saying any religious people believe and act on every pronouncement in their holy books - that would be impossible, and believers are highly selective. But if you allign yourself with a deity, then you allign yourself with those who claim to speak for that deity - in particular politicians who invoke religion.

maybe most people make that assumption... but i don't personally see every person that doesn't believe in a God as a pumpus asshole either...

i mean that's others problem ya know
if anyone wants to make a pre-judgement on another person
that is there problem... not the problem of the person that is gettin' judged

and no one is perfect... so that would take away from the whole arguement of making one sound better then the other
just cause you can manipulate it to sound worse...

(and no i don't really follow any particular religion... i just believe what i believe... i see way too many things wrong with modern day beliefs... to really wanna join any... but that doesn't mean i can't believe in something other then sciencific theories on everything)

Kapitano wrote:But if you allign yourself with a deity, then you allign yourself with those who claim to speak for that deity - in particular politicians who invoke religion.

Are you trying to say that all Christians are "aligned" with Bush?
He doesn't speak for me.
-bill

HeuristicsInc wrote:

Kapitano wrote:But if you allign yourself with a deity, then you allign yourself with those who claim to speak for that deity - in particular politicians who invoke religion.

Are you trying to say that all Christians are "aligned" with Bush?

No of course not.

Why do you think Bush makes such a big show of his faith? Is it because he's a deeply committed believer who tries to live his life in accordance with scripture? No. It's because he's trying to transfer the already existing authority of the church to himself.

Essentially, he's telling us God is on his side.

It's not true that whoever claims to speak for god controls all christians - that's obviously never been true. But organised religion involves a human power structure - people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson use the authority of God to justify their pronouncements. Bush is playing the same game.

He doesn't speak for me.

Good. There are thinking and moral christians just as there are unthinking and immoral atheists.

Kapitano wrote:But if you allign yourself with a deity, then you allign yourself with those who claim to speak for that deity - in particular politicians who invoke religion.

Okay, ya got me. What does this mean?

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Kapitano wrote:But if you allign yourself with a deity, then you allign yourself with those who claim to speak for that deity - in particular politicians who invoke religion.

Okay, ya got me. What does this mean?

Kapitano: Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that second 'align' be an 'associate'?

Kapitano wrote:It's because he's trying to transfer the already existing authority of the church to himself.

Essentially, he's telling us God is on his side.

It's not true that whoever claims to speak for god controls all christians - that's obviously never been true.

Well, nobody said "controls"
Anyway, that's not what it souned like you were saying above, but thanks for re-stating your point. This is exactly one of the things I don't like about Bush.
-bill