Ben Stein Expelled

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Of course they are, i'm not saying they aren't. My point is, that using a scientific method that was practically invented by a believer in God in an attempt to disprove the existence of God is one of the dumber things i've ever heard. Scientific method is used in many cases aside from the whole 'who created who' argument, and I'm not saying it's wrong - I just disagree with it.

Problem is, it's okay when Sir Isaac Newton or another religious person uses it, but wrong when it comes to a conclusion you disagree with?

Simply because you don't like the outcome for certain observations doesn't mean you can just dismiss it when it's convenient.

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Indeed, and that's why I'm having such a hard time talking with everyone. It's me vs. 20, and they already have the higher ground by not having to prove their theories, but yet I have to prove mine.

You need to understand that you're the one making the assertion. They don't have the higher ground, but you have to climb out of the hole you made by claiming that assertion.

The "it's not fair" argument doesn't hold water in secular interaction, either.

Originally Posted by Asmadai

I try to live according to my beliefs. It's just the whole topic at hand makes my head hurt. The science believers keep going on and on about how believing in God makes me so close-minded, sheepish, etc and how by learning God doesn't exist I could 'open my mind' and 'live a better life', but in the end we're still all nerds posting on a video game forum. They try to convince me how learning God isn't real will somehow 'enhance' my life, but yet to show what it has given them.

I don't really think that's what the people who actually discuss the topic want. However, like I said earlier, you need to understand your beliefs well enough to discuss and defend them with people. Internet boards for this kind of thing are more of a trial by fire.

Problem is, on a scientific approach, there is no definitive proof for the existence of God. It's problematic, but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Thing is, I could live out my convictions, and it does wonders in real life, but this is a forum. Living my convictions does nothing - you have to type. I trust that God will eventually provide conviction to others, but it's just hard given the gang banging i'm receiving.

Then if you know that, don't get flustered. As Millie commented, take a moment and a step back. Don't get flustered, call the trolls trolls, make comments/responses where appropriate, and accept that skeptics will value observable evidence over conviction.

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Like I said - i've not ever met a single person who thinks "Meh, Christianity? Not for me, but to each his own" and the continuation of this thread helps more solidify that ideal in my own mind that they don't exist. These rabid, verbal, rage-filled attacks on my faith just shows me that there has to be something to it. And as cliche as it may be to say it, they just don't get it, and until they find God they never will.

Well, a lot of the venom coming from people's reactions to Christianity especially, but also to other faiths stem from the close-mindedness, intolerance, and condemnation some people have received from the church and those belonging to it. Some people have been genuinely hurt, some bitter, and some just enjoy mocking another person for having these types of personal convictions. That's being human for you.

Originally Posted by Asmadai

You are right, I'm using mostly my own convictions to argue my belief, but I don't really know of any other way to argue that point.

Again, though, I think it would be helpful for you to read up on skepticism, atheism, and Christian apologetics. All of them would be good for your faith. Again, I'd suggest Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and eventually Richard Dawkins.

Before you get too dismissive, approach the stuff with an open mind, not to necessarily agree with them, but to get their take on it.

[Chrisb3]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

They already have the higher ground by not having to prove their theories, but yet I have to prove mine.

If scientific thoeries haven't been proven, how the fuck are we using computers right now. How do aeroplanes work!? ect ect.
A theory such as Evolution has A LOT of evidence in varied fields of science which all agree with each other. You can prove it wrong by finding one dinosuar in the wrong layer of rock, or a human skeleton with a velociraptor bite mark in it.
It sounds like you are trying to discredit science as a whole for some reason (on a computer lol).

Religion may not hold back Scientific advancement usually, but it is when it starts wanting to interfere with the education system.
People are arguing against you because they do not want their children taught fairytales as fact, and for them to get the "God did it" attitude that you have.
While religion may have not been to bad at various points in history, the current "Stop looking into evolution, God did it." attidute at the moment, which you seem to be displaying also is not healthy for our future.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

I think he's saying that science doesn't have to prove the stance of "God doesn't exist", since it rests on the basis that faith can't prove scientifically that he does.

Sorry Bud, burden of proof.

[Schatze]

People need an intro stats course, and an intro philosophy of science course.

edit: honestly, I blame schools. The stupid way they present the scientific method does incalculable damage as those who don't go on to take science at the university level have this utterly ridiculous picture of what science is and how you prove something scientifically. Their mental picture of how science works is just utterly bizarre.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Changed due to Schatze's edit. nm.

[Schatze]

Yeah I misunderstood what you said so I changed it from a response to just a general post :P I've not had my morning coffee yet, I blame that.

[Asmadai]

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

Problem is, it's okay when Sir Isaac Newton or another religious person uses it, but wrong when it comes to a conclusion you disagree with?

I never said it was wrong. I specifically said I don't think it's wrong, I just don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

You need to understand that you're the one making the assertion. They don't have the higher ground, but you have to climb out of the hole you made by claiming that assertion.

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

Problem is, on a scientific approach, there is no definitive proof for the existence of God. It's problematic, but it is what it is.

What you explained to that troll above you was what I'm talking about. In a discussion of Science vs. Religion, Science doesn't have to 'prove' anything. They run on theories. I can't just run on a theory though, if I can't 'prove' the existance of my God, i'm in the wrong. Thus me having to provide proof for my beliefs, wherein science can simply say 'it's a theory' makes it an uphill battle. It's not a wrong assertion.

Again, this denotes the 'uphill' battle I refer to. Science only uses the scientific approach, and since there is no definitive proof for the existence of God, how can I get through to them?

Originally Posted by UnchainedAcolyte

Again, though, I think it would be helpful for you to read up on skepticism, atheism, and Christian apologetics. All of them would be good for your faith. Again, I'd suggest Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and eventually Richard Dawkins.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

What you explained to that troll above you was what I'm talking about. In a discussion of Science vs. Religion, Science doesn't have to 'prove' anything. They run on theories. I can't just run on a theory though, if I can't 'prove' the existance of my God, i'm in the wrong. Thus me having to provide proof for my beliefs, wherein science can simply say 'it's a theory' makes it an uphill battle. It's not a wrong assertion.

Again, this denotes the 'uphill' battle I refer to. Science only uses the scientific approach, and since there is no definitive proof for the existence of God, how can I get through to them?

Theories though are based on observable, calculable data based an a reasonable hypothesis. The process is then refined and re-examined through additional data, and so on. The essence of scientific method.

I don't particularly care for the fact that evolution is taught as fact considering some complications with it involving higher organisms. However, it is the most viable scientific theory for the existence and variety of life, and so is typically taught and accepted.

If data turns up refuting it, science will adjust their theories accordingly.


Here's the thing: you might not get to anyone on the forums in terms of them seeing things your way. For me, science deals with the HOW things came into being, but not necessarily the WHY (the metaphysical ideas of meaning and purpose given to us by ourselves or God).

Assuming there is a WHY (it can't be proven, so for strict materialists it wouldn't exist), that is what I'm interested in as much as science and the HOW.

Whether or not there is meaning to existence is the bigger question. We have to apply meaning to our own lives, whether through faith, theory, and often parts of both.

Whether there is an absolute, necessary meaning, First Cause, or God, is up for debate.

[Schatze]

Uhm a "theory" is on the top of the scientific hierarchy in regards to certainty, to how much proof exists to back it up. There is no level of certainty above it. A theory in science is not the same thing as used in every day language. I thought we covered this MONTHS ago?

There is no level above a theory. There is no "THE TRUTH" level in science, all statements are made provisionally. However, theories themselves have the most evidence backing them up. We're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence for evolutionary theory.

edit: just to be more clear; a theory explains a whole bunch of different, individual lines of evidence, and ties it together. You can use a theory to make inferences about future discoveries, predictions if you will. What happens when the inferences that follow from the theory don't match tested reality? Well, we don't hear about the luminferous Aether anymore, do we?

[Arbitrary]

Laws?

Or have scientists abandoned the concept of laws? I honestly don't know.

[Schatze]

Laws are an observed mathematical relationship.

[Eomer]

^ah okay, that would explain the laws of thermodynamics etc as well. I can't think offhand of scientific "laws" that are outside of physics/math.

I was gonna ask that. Not because I question science of course, but just because I've never taken a course on the underlying philosophy of science as Schatze mentioned.

For an example let's use Newton and his Laws of Motion. Are those somehow on a higher pedestal than say, his Theory of Gravity? Are they really no different?

[Schatze]

No, laws are not of a higher level than theory. Copied from wiki (definition of a law);

* True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
* Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
* Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
* Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
* Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
* Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
* Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
* Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
* Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

Laws are more the domain of physical sciences. And they are a mathematical relationship.

They define, but they don't explain. However, a law may be explained and be encompassed by a theory.

I have to go to a meeting but I can explain a bit more later if someone else doesn't.

[Lucane Darkseraphim]

There is a difference between faith and being retarded. When there are hundreds of years of math and science to prove something by thousands of the most intelligent geniuses to ever grace this earth, and you say you don't "believe" it, that is just seriously retarded (and really damn arrogant, too).

Why don't you just believe that there is a god, you do not know what he did / does / will do, but that you thank him for whatever (but please do not thank him out loud, because we do not care). That way you can agree with and believe in everything science has proved and will prove, but still not have it conflict with your belief.

There is a difference between belief and religion. Religion shoves the shit down your throat that evolution can not be true, that Earth is some special place, and that the universe revolves around us. Belief is whatever you make of it, but hopefully you are not so arrogant to believe in things that are contrary to what is proven by the physical.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Science isnt about belief.

Science isnt about faith.

You cannot be involved in a scientific process if you are starting your examination from an unproven "faith". This is as true as it is with "scientists" trying to prove global warming as it is for ID people trying to prove God created the universe. Scientists are lead by the facts, wherever they take them.

Maybe one day the paths of science and God will cross. But we aren't there, and scientists don't say it isnt possible, they just say they have zero evidence, so it doesnt belong in their work.