Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 207 of 207

Thread: disproving religion

  1. #201  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    In a simple statement of the cosmological argument, we use the very same thinking science uses.
    They are not the same types of reasoning. The cosmological argument (and all philosophy) is deductive. The scientific method is inductive.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Prometheus said:

    They are not the same types of reasoning. The cosmological argument (and all philosophy) is deductive. The scientific method is inductive.
    I think Promethius has very succinctly summed up the objections expressed by both iNow and pavlos.

    It may burst Prom's bubble here, but science uses both deductive and inductive reasoning. It all depends on which way you are working on a problem. Quite often what we do is use deductive reasoning to arrive at a generality and then go back and use inductive reasoning in an attempt to prove that which we have deduced.

    An article found at http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Dedu...0Reasoning.htm ends with this simple explanation of the two types of reasoning.

    Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.
    Neither of these ways of reasoning is superior or inferior to the other -- logically speaking. Both are valid processes and both are important in coming to conclusions. Either process can lead to truth or error. We cannot determine the truth or error of any statement based soley on the process by which it was reached.

    Each process has it's capacity to produce truth or error. However, deductively reasoned conclusions are more easy to disagree with and more difficult to disprove. Their greatest danger is drawing a specific that does not actually fit into the generality. Inductively derived conclusions can be proven wrong merely by finding a non-conforming example. But even if you cannot find a non-conforming example, it does not prove the conclusion correct or incorrect.

    I would agree that the cosmological and teleological arguments are deductive in nature. The conclusions arrived therefrom are either truth or error, but not because of the process. It is equally possible to draw a different conclusion, but without difinitive proof one way or the other, neither conclusion can be shown to be wrong, only disputable.

    Darwinianism is the result of an inductive process in which Darwin took specific observations and developed a generality. While there can be no non-conforming examples, that does not validate the generality. But herein lies other of the possible flaws if inductive reasoning, the potential to draw too large of a generality or to have too few examples to reach a viable conclusion.

    Einstein's Theories of Relativity are a combination of the two. Einstein's conclusions were the result of deductive reasoning and subsequent applications have provided inductive proofs.


    Arcane said:
    Excuse me? How intellectually dishonest is that! the experiment shows that the process of electrification of a a solution of chemicals present during the time life came to be can produce the building blocks of life. Electrification is a natural process, not a man-made intelligent process. There is no necessity for intelligence. No leap of faith. no "belief" as you believe.
    It is not nearly so intellectually dishonest as to suggest that a controlled lab experiment absolutely or even remotely replicates something as it actually happened in nature,. What has been shown is only that something might have happened in a specific way, not that it did.

    As another example, we do not have any specific plans as to how Stradivarius made his exquisite violins. Even if someone could reinvent the Stradivarius such that it sounded and looked like a Strad (no one has, though), without a complete record of his actual methods there can be no assurance that the maker has duplicated Stradivarius' technique. Miller-Urey types of experiments are tantamount to me proving I can build a house by showing I can cut a board in half. The simple results of Miller-Urey type experiment does not even approach reconstruction complex biological systems.

    Even if life began as a natural process, lab experiments can only use man's intelligence to design a process that cannot be shown to have been the actual process. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about saying a designed experiment cannot duplicate an undesigned, unseen natural process.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    The last sentence of that last post did not say exactly what I meant. What I said was: "There is nothing intellectually dishonest about saying a designed experiment cannot duplicate an undesigned, unseen natural process."

    What I meant to say is that it would not be dishonest to say that it cannot be known if a designed experiement replicates an undesigned, unseen natural process.

    And, after thinking about it again, I think a Miller-Urey type of experiment is actually the result of deductive reasoning. The experimentor has begun from a general concept that some natural process must have kindled life. This is no less a deduction than the religious concept that a designed product requires a designer.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Sophomore MiguelSR1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Diego C.A. United States
    Posts
    141
    Because of the human need to feel and hold on to something greater than them. Religion is an ideal, ideals are extremely powerful.
    Imagination is key to the logic of thought, a greatest eternal truth.

    ME
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by MiguelSR1
    Because of the human need to feel and hold on to something greater than them. Religion is an ideal, ideals are extremely powerful.
    It also can be a a united force of people from all over the world.
    But what we see today, is that with so many religions and scientists going in a different directions , it actually is a disunity for people. And causes a lot of harm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Arcane's link leads to an article which includes this comment:

    Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (empasis mine).
    Please note the operative conditional of "now BELIEVE." So, again, the supposition is based on a belief which lacks confirmation.
    There is one minor point you seem to be missing here, "now believe" from a scientific point of view, is based on demonstrable facts whereas from a religious perspective, "now believe" is only based on faith. With no facts at all, nothing can be demonstrated.




    Hi, all.. this is slightly of topic. pavlos from you statement are you saying around 4 billion (abrahmic) humans some doctors, engineers, teachers, genetist are cave men blindly worshiping GOD, and only belive in him through faith only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by transmutation
    Hi, all.. this is slightly of topic. pavlos from you statement are you saying around 4 billion (abrahmic) humans some doctors, engineers, teachers, genetist are cave men blindly worshiping GOD, and only belive in him through faith only.
    Pavlos can answer for herself, but the point is that truth is not based on popularity. Just because 4 billion people claim to have belief in something does not mean that the thing those people believe in actually exists. If 4 billion people believed in the tooth fairy, I doubt you would think that was a good enough reason to accept the tooth fairy as a valid part of reality. Same with Santa Claus. Literally millions and millions of children believe in santa claus, but the fact that lots of people believe in him does not mean he exists.

    Pavlos' point is that daytonturner was equivocating and conflating terms. Daytonturner was trying to suggest that when scientists state that they believe something in the context of science it is equivalent to when religious people state that they believe something in the context of their religion... he was suggesting that there was really no difference there, and this is plainly false.

    While I recognize that many scientists are themselves religious people, the point is that "belief" when discussed in science is based on evidence whereas "belief" when discussed in religion is not. Belief when discussed in religion is based on faith, not evidence, and this remains true regardless of how many people on the planet have that belief or faith. The number of people who believe it does not mean it's true, as truth and existence are not demonstrated by popularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •