• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is Belief?

Science... unverifiable.

The Clown has returned!

:D

FYI, Rad - Science assumes NOTHING. Individual scientists may - alas, they are only human - but science as a whole is specifically about avoiding assumptions and finding VERIFIABLE truth.

This is why gravity is science but homeopathy is NOT. One can be verified, the other cannot. When we discovered that mercury expands and contracts in relationship to atmospheric pressure, we could then verify it repeatedly, and do so daily via thermometers. When we discovered the internal combustion engine, it wasn't a singular event; it was a reproducible, verifiable device.

I will concede, some assumptions are made, the first of which is that other verified facts remain true; water still freezes at 32 degrees farenheit, which is useful for experiments involving freezing, unless other factors act upon it (which we know and can verify as well). Nonetheless, this does not require belief; only knowledge. If you know something, you have no reason to believe it. Belief only comes into play when knowledge is uncertain - and some things are certain. In fact, any scientist who produces an unverifiable result has failed. Any scientist who bases his research on unverified assumptions has failed.

Obviously, Rad, you have no grasp of science whatsoever. But, then, from someone who takes a centuries-old book of politically-rewritten fables as fact, that isn't too surprising.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Science... unverifiable.

The Clown has returned!

:D

Click to expand...

And this is just one example of what I was subjected to prior to my losing my patience.

The problem is that those who constantly do this feel that they have some type of right to hurl verbal abuse my way. This could be based on many factors. But that is irrelevant.

Now, if while under this barrage, which is again beginning to gain impetus, I chance to lose my patience and say something wrong from a Christian perspective, then these are trhe ones who celebrate and begin to point fingers and claim that the loss of patience was unprovoked.

I once almost ripped a dog's head off.
Why?
It was trying to kill me.
I tried to evade that dog and did so for one year.
But one day it cornered me and it forced into defending myself.
The owner said that I hurt his dog while being unprovoked.

So this type of trash is nothing new from where I stand.
 
Apologies, Rad - since it obviously hurts your feelings.

However, I notice you fastidiously avoid, once again, to tackle the relative meat and bones of the post.

Which is probably why I'm so vitriolic towards your commentary.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Apologies, Rad - since it obviously hurts your feelings.

However, I notice you fastidiously avoid, once again, to tackle the relative meat and bones of the post.

Which is probably why I'm so vitriolic towards your commentary.
Click to expand...

If a post begins with an insult how am I supposed to concentrate on what comes after? Anyway, apologies accepted. I will go over the rest of your post and see how I can give a relevant reply.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:

I'm saying beliefs are not required for interpretation, though when beliefs are present, they do often muddy the waters. My argument with your position is not that belief belongs nowhere near this discussion. I just deny that it is the basis for relative meaning, since such can be achieved in a system devoid of beliefs.
Click to expand...
About all I will grant you is that the words "belief" and "meaning" are two separate words in the dictionary and don't mean exactly the same thing. However, to say that meaning is merely relative and in is not contingent upon what one believes, which is also merely relative -- or not -- is nonsense.
 
Radrook said:

If a post begins with an insult how am I supposed to concentrate on what comes after?
Click to expand...
Because it has nothing to do with discussing your beliefs, but rather to maintain what's commonly held (or believed).
 
Iacchus said:
About all I will grant you is that the words "belief" and "meaning" are two separate words in the dictionary and don't mean exactly the same thing. However, to say that meaning is merely relative and in is not contingent upon what one believes, which is also merely relative -- or not -- is nonsense.
Click to expand...
So, essentially, what you're saying is, yes, I should stick to monosyllables in the future so you can follow along?
 
Marquis de Carabas said:

So, essentially, what you're saying is, yes, I should stick to monosyllables in the future so you can follow along?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess it all depends on whether you have anything better to do or not?
 
Humm, let's try this...

Say I decide to make a book describing everything in the universe. So I do it. But upon completion the book is already incorrect because the universe did not contain the book until I wrote it. So I undertake a second book and this time include my first book.

Maybe that is a poor example, but the idea is that is we cannot describe "All" without stepping outside the bounds.

We could claim that "god" is the thing that lies outside the bounds, but if we somehow stepped outside the bounds and met this god, wouldn't there be a reason to think that god had a god? (an infinite number of 'gods'?)

Since we cannot ever step outside the bounds of our existence we create something there because we are also really smart and creative.

There may actually be something there, but we cannot know if there is or not. What we do know for certain is that we cannot encompass the 'truth' of what the universe is while existing within it.

So maybe 'religion' is natural, but it seems like a mathematical certainty rather than a supernatural one.
 
Kopji said:

So maybe 'religion' is natural, but it seems like a mathematical certainty rather than a supernatural one.
Click to expand...
If, in fact the natural world is supposed to act according to certain Universal rules (mathematics), there's no reason why both these statements can't be true. In fact, it would almost have to be this way in order to account for the supernatural. But then again that could be construed as possible evidence which, we should probably try to avoid, because nobody wants to hear about it anyway. ;)
 
I know Occam's razor tends to be misused, but this is a point it should apply. Why should we look for a supernatural solution when a mathematical one describes why we cannot answer all the questions we ask.
(And ok yes, apologies to Kurt Gödel).
 
Thast is assuming that a mathematical explanation is acceptable.
There are scientists who do not find it acceptable.
 
Kopji said:

I know Occam's razor tends to be misused, but this is a point it should apply. Why should we look for a supernatural solution when a mathematical one describes why we cannot answer all the questions we ask.
(And ok yes, apologies to Kurt Gödel).
Click to expand...
Evidence is evidence. And, if in fact it can be used to support the notion of God, why can't it be construed as such? For example, here is another little gem which I think you'll find equally intriguing ...

"Everything is a subset of the moment, which is of One Mind, which is God's."

So at least in my book these are two things which clearly cannot be overlooked. :)
 
Something worth reading about the meaning of 'true'. (Not a religious topic but useful...) http://www.ditext.com/tarski/tarski.html

Briefly put (sorry, my own words):

Statements are...
true and provable as true
not true and provable as false
true but not provable as true
not true and not provable as false

Evidence helps us to conclude if something is provable as true or false and what it is. Sometimes, evidence helps us conclude that something is not provable, and that too is a valuable lesson. How to decide when something is not provable is a powerful concept explored by a guy named Turing.

What I am simply trying to say is that there is ALWAYS a set of ideas that will fall into the category of the last two "unprovable". As we learn more, there is always more to learn.

If we could eliminate the 'unprovables', where would our gods and myths live?
 
Kopji said:

If we could eliminate the 'unprovables', where would our gods and myths live?
Click to expand...
Of course it wouldn't be like they just cropped up out of nowhere would it? But then again that's the same notion we use for the Big Bang. Hmm ...
 
uruk said:
Name one.
Click to expand...

One?
Excuse me but-------------
:D

All scientists are evolutionists.
Joe is not an evolutionist.
Joe is not a scientist.

Very convenient but drivel nevertheless.
 
crocodile deathroll said:

I belief IMO is one persons personal opinion about the existence of something with or without any direct evidence of it.

CDR
Click to expand...
Except that we all need reassurance in what we believe. This is why we have Science, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom