Do you believe in God?

[Hun200kmh]

If you feel that others' words explain "your point" better than what you can do with your own writing, do quote them, if others get bothered that's not a big problem.

(although I have to say I don't like too many quotes too. In the atheist camp I remember Tic Tach's endless supply of quotes, videos, links, whatever and I didn't enjoy that either)

However, using others' words without specifically saying that you are just quoting the original author(s) is plain wrong.

 

[homeforsummer]

Regardless of what I think about TankAss95's posting, I think you guys are wrong in your demands. By these standards, and because God is not proven (or provable IMO) by science, this reply to the threads question:

"Of course, without him nothing would exist"

... is also an infraction to the AUP. Time to issue 256 of those?

No, because the thread is asking "Do you believe in God?". If 256 people believe in him then that's fine. Persisting with a concept ("mathematics isn't provable") that has repeatedly been proven wrong is different.

So, I've been told I'm quoting too much, then told I'm not quoting sufficiently?

You can't act confused on that one.

There's a difference between your post being hundreds of words belonging to someone else, and referencing a quote amongst words you've typed yourself. The idea is to cut down on the former, and ensure you reference in the latter.

If you can't see the difference then I hope you've not got any exams or essays coming up in your life.

 

[TankAss95]

Persisting with a concept ("mathematics isn't provable") that has repeatedly been proven wrong is different.

In all honesty, I cannot see why absolute Mathematical truths can be proven by science. We use mathematics to write science down on paper, but in order to use science to prove the absolute mathematical truths we use is ridiculous. No matter how consistent and successful our absolute truths of logic and mathematics are in the use of science, we cannot possibly prove these truths using science because in order to do so we would have to verify the scientific method scientifically, which is ridiculous.

1. Science is based on logical and mathematical truths that cannot be proven by the scientific method.
2. Therefore science cannot explain or justify itself.

I'm seriously worried on my part. I really think I'm not getting something here.

 

[Famine]

You're confusing "science" the school subject with the word "science" which, literally, means "knowledge".

 

[TankAss95]

You're confusing "science" the school subject with the word "science" which, literally, means "knowledge".

So therefore, all knowledge is science?
So science includes Philosophy, Mathematics, Theology, Art, Literature?

 

[Famine]

So therefore, all knowledge is science?

All objective knowledge.

 

[TankAss95]

All objective knowledge.

Is it true that any knowledge that is free from a personal feeling or goal, must be verified by using the scientific methods?

How can mathematics be verified by science, if science cannot verify mathematics due to mathematics being the very foundation of scientific knowledge?
It has been said that the only absolute facts in science are those in mathematics, but accepting mathematics as truth is by using rational and logical thought. Accepting mathematical truths is a presumption, therefore science cannot explain itself.

Just because mathematics is consistent with science, does not mean that science can explain mathematics. Mathematics is merely the process of science itself.

 

[Joey D]

The scientific method can be scientifically tested. Via the scientific method.

Wait that seems rather circular to me, how can you use the very thing you are trying to prove with the thing that you are trying to prove. It seems like it would be the same as defining a word with the same word.

There must be another way you can test the scientific method by using some other method.

 

[TankAss95]

Wait that seems rather circular to me, how can you use the very thing you are trying to prove with the thing that you are trying to prove. It seems like it would be the same as defining a word with the same word.

There must be another way you can test the scientific method by using some other method.

Exactly, thus, science cannot explain itself.

Fin.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Oh dear, what a confusing last page!

Summing it up, and adding my own view:

Science (the scientific method) is the way the human mind is able to put order in the world it perceives.

Is it a way to the truth?
Is it not?

Are we all living in cocoons run by machines while our brain thinks we are actually ... you know ... living and going about our business? (Matrix reference )

Are we all living in a dream, within a dream, within a dream (Inception reference )


I don't know.

Our brain is both our window to the world, and our prison. Because it is trough our brain that we see all (word see used in lato sensu) and therefore all we see is all our brain allows us to see.

Anyway, and back on topic, I'm quite pleased with science and the scientific method as a way to obtain objective knowledge on everything we can physically and mathematically measure. I'm very pro-science and always eager for it to learn more. Do I think science achieves the absolute truth? No, I think God is unreachable by science, and unprovable by any scientific method. I think God's existence is indeed beyond what our brain (and the scientific method it uses to gain knowledge and order into the perceivable world) can reach.

It's our soul that is able to achieve God, not our brain. But, just like it happens with God, science doesn't reach the soul. And you have two options:

a) only believe in what science achieves;
b) believe in more than what science achieves.

As long as everyone respects everyone else's personal option, we're fine.

 

[Famine]

Is it true that any knowledge that is free from a personal feeling or goal, must be verified by using the scientific methods?

No - but then it's not objective knowledge.

How can mathematics be verified by science, if science cannot verify mathematics due to mathematics being the very foundation of scientific knowledge?
It has been said that the only absolute facts in science are those in mathematics, but accepting mathematics as truth is by using rational and logical thought. Accepting mathematical truths is a presumption, therefore science cannot explain itself.

Just because mathematics is consistent with science, does not mean that science can explain mathematics. Mathematics is merely the process of science itself.

Not one part of that makes any sense. Please stop thinking of science as what people in white coats do using test tubes.

 

[huskeR32]

As I have said, mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Mathematical truths are presupposed by science, and arguing that science could prove then would be arguing in a circle.

In all honesty, I cannot see why absolute Mathematical truths can be proven by science.

No matter how consistent and successful our absolute truths of logic and mathematics are in the use of science, we cannot possibly prove these truths using science

Want me to prove a mathematical truth? The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Via scientific testing, I first create a set of right triangles as my experimental set. Then I test if the calculations work out. They do. I work out a method of plotting the relationship on a graph, and the graph will show me all possible data points. I take samples at a wide variety of data points, and this proves my theorem. I now have great confidence that it is true. To disprove it, you would have to find a single data point that goes against the grain, which is impossible.

Scientific method proves a mathematical truth. Whoops. I thought they were untestable?

Can you read? It seems that niky provided a more than satisfactory rebuttal, yet you still keep yammering away at this.

 

[Exorcet]

The mathematical statements of science, precisely by being assumed by every scientific theory, belong to the background assumptions of those theories.

Simply put, a theory does not need to prove something that we already know is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Mass conservation in fluid dynamics is assumed. If you like, you could go try to prove that it's not true. Just note that it's pretty much proved with every single application of fluid dynamics.

You could also try to pick some other subject if you like.

 

[TankAss95]

Can you read? It seems that niky provided a more than satisfactory rebuttal, yet you still keep yammering away at this.

Once again, mathematics is a tool that is used in science. Science therefore cannot prove mathematical truths. Further more, mathematics cannot be proven by itself. It's a consistent, successful tool to aid our understanding of the natural world, but pure mathematics can never be observed in nature.

I accept mathematics as an accurate tool that we use to interpret the natural world, but we cannot prove any mathematical theories as being an absolute fact, we have to presume this.

Back to the original statement, science cannot explain itself because it cannot be verified by the scientific method.

And by the way, am I still on the verge of a AUP violation?

 

[Liquid]

mathematics is a tool that is used in science. Science therefore cannot prove mathematical truths.

Proof?

Further more, mathematics cannot be proven by itself.

Proof?

You're coming across as saying that a man with wild hair, safety goggles and a beaker of hydrochloric acid can't prove that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, which is ridiculous.

And I can't see how any of this proves your belief that God is real.

Please explain what you mean.

 

[Bobalob]

Science explains itself by it's effectiveness surely?

Some cleverly constructed arguments against science I'll give you that, although clearly not your own.

I have a feeling they only work on people with little understanding of science though, much like a stoner lost in the contemplation of a mysterious word lol.

that's how I see it anyway.

 

[Joey D]

Exactly, thus, science cannot explain itself.

Fin.

Eh, that really wasn't my point. Science works to some degree since we do have results and explanations, if it didn't work we'd have nothing. My point was that to prove a method using the same method doesn't really work and I was wondering what else was out there that proved it.

And mathematics can be proven, anyone that's been through basic math in school should have done proofs before.

Granted, if you wanted to really go out on a limb you could just say science and mathematics are based on human perceptions of things around them and only are proven to us by our own knowledge. But that might be a hard case to make.

 

[dylansan]

Pretty much all of mathematics is based on the concept of counting. Once you accept that one plus on equals two, you can prove from those assumptions that addition works. Multiplication is just simplified addition. Exponents are simplified multiplication. Etc etc.

Also, just because there are some questions science cannot answer does not make science a faulty tool. Science is the only way to answer a question. An answer you get from any other method is by no means definitive, and this includes religion. The fact that there is more than one religion should be proof enough of this.

Science doesn't have the answers to all our questions, but it does have "all the answers" in that anything else is not really an answer but an opinion.

 

[TankAss95]

Eh, that really wasn't my point. Science works to some degree since we do have results and explanations, if it didn't work we'd have nothing. My point was that to prove a method using the same method doesn't really work and I was wondering what else was out there that proved it.

Never have I said that science does not work. Science does work, but science cannot explain how science works. Science is based on presumption, not proof.

And mathematics can be proven, anyone that's been through basic math in school should have done proofs before.

Granted, if you wanted to really go out on a limb you could just say science and mathematics are based on human perceptions of things around them and only are proven to us by our own knowledge. But that might be a hard case to make.

How can mathematic truths be proven in an absolute? Mathematics is our way of understanding, describing and predicting the world around us. Absolute mathematical truths are not observable in nature. Just because mathematical truths have been successful and consistent, does not mean the mathematical truths themselves are proven.

We accept and presume mathematical truths as being absolute truths because it is a rational thing to do so. It's just the same as the fact that you can't prove that there are other conscious beings but your own, yet you believe this because it is a rational stance to hold.

 

[Akira AC]

Never have I said that science does not work. Science does work, but science cannot explain how science works. Science is based on presumption, not proof.

Wrong, Science work based on methods, is ludicrous to say that it doesn't know how it works since is a method.

How can mathematic truths be proven in an absolute? Mathematics is our way of understanding, describing and predicting the world around us. Absolute mathematical truths are not observable in nature. Just because mathematical truths have been successful and consistent, does not mean the mathematical truths themselves are proven.

Mathematical truths are proven by the universe itself, if the mathematical truths weren't truth then the basic concepts of engineering would be complete false, which makes your statement fall flat since since engineering can be applied and it has real application, not just a conceptual one.

We accept and presume mathematical truths as being absolute truths because it is a rational thing to do so. It's just the same as the fact that you can't prove that there are other conscious beings but your own, yet you believe this because it is a rational stance to hold.

Funny that, because if such concept can be accepted then the very concept of god can get into question, since it can be attributed to a psychological phenomena instead of a proven truth.

 

[Villain]

Science is based on assumptions yes. One that have been tested over and over again and shown to be correct assumptions. There is no guesswork involved.

I hate pedantic arguments

Also, you weren't in danger of an AUP violation by not replying. You were warned about a possible AUP violation that could occur for doing basically what you just did, ignoring other posts. It's up to the mods though.

What are you talking about?

 

[Exorcet]

How can mathematic truths be proven in an absolute?

Take one object. Take another object.

Count them and see how many times you don't get 2.

Or take 1 object, count it, and see how many times you get more than 1.

Go take all possible triangles, sum all of the angles for all the triangles. See what you get for every case.

What are you talking about?

I was trying to say that Tankass was not at risk for a AUP violation for not posting. homeforsummer was implying that by using the argument that Tankass had used 1000 times over once again, he would be at risk of posting information that was false. The mods are the ones who make the final decision, so take their word over mine.

 

[niky]

As I have said, mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Mathematical truths are presupposed by science, and arguing that science could prove then would be arguing in a circle.

Mathematical truths can not be unproved. Science doesn't cover Math, but Mathematical truths can be verified through scientific means.

This is why we say 2+2=4 can be verified scientifically. You take two rocks and two rocks... put them together... four! You take two fingers and two fingers... four! You have experimented and verified a mathematical truth. You can extend the set of experimental subjects ad infinitum and it still holds true.

Even if you have doubt of the mathematical truths, you can experiment on them and verify them. You saying they cannot be proven doesn't make them any less true, or any less easy to verify independently.

-

We've talked about this before. Whether the Universe is truth or illusion, as long as what we're given is self-consistent, we must accept that as our given reality. If you doubt that, you might as well give up completely on life, since it doesn't matter anyway.

There must be another way you can test the scientific method by using some other method.

The "scientific method", artificial construct that it is, can be summed up thus: "If it's consistent, repeatable and verifiable by independent observation and experimentation, then it's true until such time as it is proven false."

What other method can we construct?

The "New Age" method: "If it's proposed by a man or woman with lots of facial hair, colored glasses and a dirty frock and rejected by 'modern science', it's true."

The "Conventional Wisdom" method: "This is what everyone thinks, therefore it must be true." Reference: Politics. Advertising. Mass Media.

The "Ancient Wisdom" method: "If it's written in ancient texts, it's true." -subdivided into: "Wisdom of the Mayans/Egyptians", a crossover with "New Age", and "Organized Religion", a crossover with "Conventional Wisdom"

The "Greek" method: "If I think it's true and I can personally think of no logical reason for it to not be true, despite the lack of evidence for or against, then it's true."
-also known as the TankAss method.

Or my favorite, "Conspiracy" method: "If it's being said by someone in a white lab coat or a suit and tie, it must be completely and utterly false."


How do we verify that these methods is best?

Simply by applying them all to a wide number of problems and finding out which is most accurate in predicting the outcome. That, then, is the method we use. Unfortunately, what I have just described is a scientific method of verifying the scientific method.

 

[dylansan]

Well done niky. Really nailed that last line. 👍

 

[Sach]

The "New Age" method: "If it's proposed by a man or woman with lots of facial hair, colored glasses and a dirty frock and rejected by 'modern science', it's true."

The "Conventional Wisdom" method: "This is what everyone thinks, therefore it must be true." Reference: Politics. Advertising. Mass Media.

The "Ancient Wisdom" method: "If it's written in ancient texts, it's true." -subdivided into: "Wisdom of the Mayans/Egyptians", a crossover with "New Age", and "Organized Religion", a crossover with "Conventional Wisdom"

The "Greek"method: "If I think it's true and I can personally think of no logical reason for it to not be true, despite the lack of evidence for or against, then it's true."
-also known as the TankAss method.

Or my favorite, "Conspiracy" method: "If it's being said by someone in a white lab coat or a suit and tie, it must be completely and utterly false."

Geez man.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Never have I said that science does not work. Science does work, but science cannot explain how science works. Science is based on presumption, not proof.



(1) How can mathematic truths be proven in an absolute? (2)Mathematics is our way of understanding, describing and predicting the world around us. Absolute mathematical truths are not observable in nature. Just because mathematical truths have been successful and consistent, does not mean the mathematical truths themselves are proven.

We accept and presume mathematical truths as being absolute truths because it is a rational thing to do so. It's just the same as the fact that you can't prove that there are other conscious beings but your own, yet you believe this because it is a rational stance to hold.

Once again, a two day break, and I come back to find the floodgates have opened back up...

We've strayed a bit, I think.

(1) First, I repeat from earlier in the thread: NOTHING can be "absolutely proven" by science or mathematics. No one claims this in this thread, or in the general scientific community, so far as I'm aware. We freely admit that. I still don't see how your claim of the "fallability" of mathematics in any way strengthens the case for the existence of God.

(2) Maybe this will help clear up your confusion. First, a requote, for accuracy.

Mathematics SCIENCE is our way of understanding, describing and predicting the world around us.

A simple analogy, I think, can clear this up for you. Science, or as Famine restated it, objective knowledge, is the book.

Mathematics are the language the book is written in. Virtually every field of mathematics were invented originally for the purpose of explaining a specific phenomena - Newton invented Calculus, essentially, on a dare, and ended up describing the properties of Physics. Hence, via mathematics, science is explained. THAT is how science (knowledge) explains itself.

Mathematics, then, are basically arbitrary, and require no proof, as such.

Given all that, back to (1) and your original point. Science cannot absolutely PROVE itself, via mathematics or any other means, but by any objective, or really any reasonable subjective view, it doesn't matter. Science is the best, most consistent system of explanation we have for every observable phenomena ever encountered. Mathematics is (more often than not) the way we arbitrarily assign values to the physical constants involved in the proccesses of Science. That doesn't change the fact that these constants ARE, just that: constant.

Now then - that aside, can you agree that Science offers more reasonable, consistent, acceptable notions regarding reality than does Christianity?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Science cannot absolutely PROVE itself, via mathematics or any other means, but by any objective, or really any reasonable subjective view, it doesn't matter. Science is the best, most consistent system of explanation we have for every observable phenomena ever encountered.

Read indeed about Immanuel Kant:
* phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience.
* Kant has a negative conclusion from Critique of Pure Reason, all we do (believe in God or our work in science), we can not prove it as truth, since it is inside of us and done with our capacities, the complete truth can not be known by us.
* Kant has a positive conclusion: there is systematic knowledge (objective) of the nature of things as they appear to us => science

So if God appeared, science could objectively prove he existed. That science does not prove God exists, does not prove God does not exist, it just makes it domain of believe not science.

 

[huskeR32]

That science does not prove God exists, does not prove God does not exist, it just makes it domain of believe not science.

I think that's been freely acknowledged by every atheist in this thread. And as has also been pointed out, this same exact status can be attributed to unicorns, dragons, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch, the Yeti, and on and on and on and on.

If that's the strongest part of your argument, that god's existence can't be disproved by science, then you're standing on some really weak ground there.

 

[Joey D]

What other method can we construct?
...
How do we verify that these methods is best?

Simply by applying them all to a wide number of problems and finding out which is most accurate in predicting the outcome. That, then, is the method we use. Unfortunately, what I have just described is a scientific method of verifying the scientific method.

I don't know what other methods we could construct, all I'm saying is using the same method that you are trying to prove as proof does not make sense. There is no room to find flaws and it will end up being one big circle. Theists fall into the same trap when it comes to trying to prove God.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the scientific method. I just can't accept the answer of it works because it allows itself to work as proof, there has to be more to it than that.

The "Ancient Wisdom" method: "If it's written in ancient texts, it's true." -subdivided into: "Wisdom of the Mayans/Egyptians", a crossover with "New Age", and "Organized Religion", a crossover with "Conventional Wisdom"

The "Greek" method: "If I think it's true and I can personally think of no logical reason for it to not be true, despite the lack of evidence for or against, then it's true."
-also known as the TankAss method.

You are writing off ancient civilizations that provided modern civilizations wisdom on how many things work, there is nothing New Age about any of it. The Greeks were fantastic architects and provided us with many of the fundamentals in math. Many ancient civilizations also knew a great deal about astronomy, seasons, how the world worked, etc. To simply say that wisdom written in ancient texts is wrong, is an incorrect statement in itself.

Also Aristotle is credited with the classical model of the scientific method. Sure it is not as thorough as the modern scientific method, but he certainly laid the foundation.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Science is based on presumption, not proof.

Same way I feel about "God".