So, this is floating around the Facebook, this morning...

#126
#126
OrangeEmpire said:
Never said it proves, can lead to the possibility, next to faith dont know what else you are going to get.
Click to expand...

That was my point. Thanks.

There is no evidence for it, in my opinion. There is only the inability to disprove it. That is enough for some. It's not enough for me.
 
#128
#128
Thrasher865 said:
That was my point. Thanks.

There is no evidence for it, in my opinion. There is only the inability to disprove it. That is enough for some. It's not enough for me.
Click to expand...

Are you saying belief can't include a measure of faith? To me fiath would mean there are things unproven that have to be accepted for the rest of the theory to fit. Almost every philosophy and scientific theory includes things not yet proven.
 
#129
#129
YorkVol said:
Wouldn't you differentiate between empirical and experiencial evidence?
Click to expand...

I specified 'philosophers' because they tend to think anything beyond the mind as empirical; including a conversation/testimony between two people.
 
#131
#131
YorkVol said:
Are you saying belief can't include a measure of faith? To me fiath would mean there are things unproven that have to be accepted for the rest of the theory to fit. Almost every philosophy and scientific theory includes things not yet proven.
Click to expand...

True. But, they also include a wealth of evidence that proves 90% of the rest of the theory to be true. I find no evidence that any percentage of the theory of intelligent design is true.

Just as I don't subscribe to string theory, or M theory, as it's purely mathematical.
 
#132
#132
Thrasher865 said:
True. But, they also include a wealth of evidence that proves 90% of the rest of the theory to be true. I find no evidence that any percentage of the theory of intelligent design is true.

Just as I don't subscribe to string theory, or M theory, as it's purely mathematical.
Click to expand...

Wealth of evidence you find valid, I'm good with that.
 
#133
#133
Thrasher865 said:
True. But, they also include a wealth of evidence that proves 90% of the rest of the theory to be true. I find no evidence that any percentage of the theory of intelligent design is true.

Just as I don't subscribe to string theory, or M theory, as it's purely mathematical.
Click to expand...

Lawrence Krauss expresses this better than I can in his book:

"Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key principles: (1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one's theoretical models."
 
#134
#134
God is simply an easy way for some people to fill the gaps in their understanding, and it will always be the answer for some, because I believe we will never have a fully complete understanding of everything in the universe.[/QUOTE]

so god is just for lazy people
 
#135
#135
Not necessarily, but that could certainly be one category.

Some people simple need to or want to believe in something greater, and that's fine.

It goes against principal 3 in my quote above, but that way of thinking isn't for everybody.
 
#136
#136
Thrasher865 said:
Lawrence Krauss expresses this better than I can in his book:

"Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key principles: (1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one's theoretical models."
Click to expand...

I would submit that these three fit his a priori beliefs in science.
 
#137
#137
That makes no sense, york. His beliefs in science would be wholly based on experimental evidence....
 
#138
#138
I believe there is a lot of mental testosterone being spewed in this thread. Is there emperical or experiential evidence to prove or support that belief? Perhaps... perhaps not... but it is my belief nonetheless.
 
#140
#140
By that, do you mean his beliefs that there is no God? You could certainly argue that his theory excludes God because he doesn't believe in one.

On the other hand, his theory does not assert that a god does or does not exist, simply that a god does not need to exist. And based on those principles, he would not include an unnecessary god in his theories.
 
#142
#142
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I believe there is a lot of mental testosterone being spewed in this thread. Is there emperical or experiential evidence to prove or support that belief? Perhaps... perhaps not... but it is my belief nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I believe that you are not necessary to this thread. Yet, here you are. Does that prove the existence of a god?
 
#143
#143
Thrasher865 said:
That makes no sense, york. His beliefs in science would be wholly based on experimental evidence....
Click to expand...

Sure it does. First he believes he will find the answers through science and then works up reasons why. We all do this, he just writes it better.
 
#144
#144
Well, then you need to read more about scientific theory, because that is not at all how it works.
 
#148
#148
The step that religion is missing, that scientists include is the experimentation. He draws up a theory, then he and experimental physicists work up experiments to try to prove/disprove the theory. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, he abandons it.

Quantum theories are backed up by a mountain of experimental evidence.
 
#149
#149
YorkVol said:
What is the first step?
Click to expand...

Forming a hypothesis.

This hypothesis isn't based on belief. It is based in experimental evidence that comes up in testing a previous theory, or in unexpected results from previous experimental data. Most theories are adaptations of older theories that more completely define a phenomenon.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top