Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 160
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,294


    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Your own words: "faith is the absence of logic." Must I find the quote from a dozen or so posts ago?

    You have faith. You have an absence of logic.

    If you're going to be this intellectually dishonest, there's no point to continue dialoguing.
    Lol. Ok.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Science is observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding.

    The fruits of science govern your daily life.
    Is something really proven if it is proposing a solution or explanation?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    28,295
    Blog Entries
    3
    I dont understand how anyone can believe in any of this after watching Ancient Aliens.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #52

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Is something really proven if it is proposing a solution or explanation?
    Uh, no. Which is why hypothesizing is one step of a process...
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  5. #53

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Lol. Ok.
    Neat.

    Edit to add: You gonna acknowledge your own words and own up to your lack of logic (based on your own definition of faith), or are you just gonna wander off with a (snarky, could we call it?) "laugh out loud"?
    Last edited by akashicrecorder; 05-21-2013 at 10:19 PM.
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Uh, no. Which is why hypothesizing is one step of a process...
    Alright well you're clearly hear just to argue your superior reasoning and intelligence so I'll just get to my point. Science is proven based on what is known today, when new things are discovered science constantly needs to be... reworked (for lack of a better word, my brain is dead)

    For example:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1128132116.htm

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...lobal-cooling/

    To me this is a very small small part of why I believe in god. For everything we think we know, we discover something else that tells us we don't know shit. It's as if each and every discovery tells us there is way more we don't know than what we do "know" (which I think is more likely).

    BTW - I don't think "observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding" is exclusive to or solely because of science.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  7. #55

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Alright well you're clearly hear just to argue your superior reasoning and intelligence so I'll just get to my point. Science is proven based on what is known today, when new things are discovered science constantly needs to be... reworked (for lack of a better word, my brain is dead)

    For example:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1128132116.htm

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...lobal-cooling/

    To me this is a very small small part of why I believe in god. For everything we think we know, we discover something else that tells us we don't know shit. It's as if each and every discovery tells us there is way more we don't know than what we do "know" (which I think is more likely).

    BTW - I don't think "observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding" is exclusive to or solely because of science.
    You're right. That's why I'm here. Solely to argue how smart I am. I'm not trying to offend you or attack you. I'm sorry if it comes off that way. At first I thought you might've been trying to troll a little. Sorry, you clearly weren't.

    "Observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding" are (a big part of the) basis of science. Whenever you do these things, on a small scale or large scale, you are behaving, thinking, and acting scientifically. When the first people who discovered fire touched it and found out that it hurt, touched it again and were hurt again, and did so over and over until they stopped touching fire because they realized it would always hurt them, they were conducting experiments and drawing conclusions. Science is really that simple.

    And yes, science is reworked constantly. That's the beauty of it. You don't need to give links to show me this, because anyone who is honest about science and appreciates it for what it does, continues to do, and will always do for the human species is THRILLED about how it changes and adapts as we discover new information. The fact science is always updating is not some secret or shameful thing. I love that science does this and so do scientists. You should too. It's what helps us to develop new medicines and inventions and technology.

    I'd much prefer constant "reworking" to living according to religious rules that never change (or change only after bloodshed and protests and deaths), even as our attitudes and morals change. (My god, I'm glad Christians "reworked" their understanding of the bible so that they stopped using it to justify slavery in America, for example.)

    What does the ability and willingness of science to improve itself have to do with your belief in a higher power? No one said science had all the answers. But that doesn't mean you should make up your own answer and call it "god" and feel better because in your mind "god" never changes.
    Last edited by akashicrecorder; 05-21-2013 at 10:16 PM.
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  8. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    You're right. That's why I'm here. Solely to argue how smart I am. I'm not trying to offend you or attack you. I'm sorry if it comes off that way. At first I thought you might've been trying to troll a little. Sorry, you clearly weren't.

    (My god, I'm glad Christians "reworked" their understanding of the bible so that they stopped using it to justify slavery in America, for example.)

    What does the ability and willingness of science to improve itself have to do with your belief in a higher power? No one said science had all the answers. But that doesn't mean you should make up your own answer and call it "god" and feel better because in your mind "god" never changes.
    This post reminds me of this

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  9. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    QI can respond to each individual reply if you'd like, but it won't be fruitful and we will continue to go round and round. We're arguing from completely different understandings, and it's obvious you do not understand the point I'm trying to make.

    Some references if your interested to help understand where I'm coming from:


    The position your arguing from, whether you realize it or not, is the age old position of logical positivism (also known as logical empiricism). I'm sure you'll wholeheartedly agree with the many positions, the main one of which being empiricism.


    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...cal-positivism


    This talks about the limitations of formal systems (positivism-empiricism- mathematics-logic) discovered by Kurt Godel and him incompleteness theorems, dealing a crushing blow to positivism. This is extremely important to understand. Here's a short article, I'd recommend finding others:

    http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath...ncompleteness/


    And finally an excellent little piece by Stephen Hawkins tying them together. The point I'm making he starts talking about in paragraph 13.

    " What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted."

    And later

    " Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved."


    http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-...f-physics.html


    Edit: I think it's interesting to note the change of tune from is triumphalism in "A Brief History of Time" which I mentioned in my previous post, to his current views expressed here.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 05-22-2013 at 08:13 AM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  10. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,294
    Thanks Sir for posting that. I knew I heard this line of questioning before and you recognized it.

    Applying logic to a topic of faith is simply, well, illogical and a flawed premise.

    I'm sure AKA has a family member, significant other, pet, etc. she loves. I could just as easily ask "prove it". After all, science tells us that love is simply a chemical reaction in the brain that resembles an addiction. But we all know love is deeper than that and it's different for every person.

    At the end of the day, we have to accept, on faith, that love is real and not the vapid description of some scientist.

    Faith in a higher being is no different.
    Last edited by HoustonRaven; 05-22-2013 at 06:23 PM.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Glad to share, it really is fascinating stuff. It's difficult to grasp at first, but immediately after you do the deep implications jump right out at you.


    On a more relatable note, Alan Turing, one of the fathers of modern computers, actual took Godels theorem a step further by applying it to computations. Turing took Godels abstract ideas about incompleteness in logic, and transfered them to incomputability. Since computers are logic machines, incompleteness shows there are some problems (statements) that can never be solved (proved). What Turing proved is that not only will a computer that is fed one of these problems never stop, but there is no way of knowing beforehand whether a problem we feed in to be solved is this type of unsolvable problem. In other words, there's no way to tell beforehand if a problem is just difficult and taking an extremely long time, or if it will run forever because it can never be solved.


    With Godel there was the hope that, since all systems of logic have unsolvable problems, we could at least distinguish between the solvable and the unsolvable, set the unsolvable aside, and only pursue the solvable. Turing squashed this final hope, showing there is no way to distinguish. We can never know whether what we are working on is just extremely difficult, or simply unsolvable.

    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  12. #60

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Applying logic to a topic of faith is simply, well, illogical and a flawed premise.
    I will always have the right to expect the people I share this world with to be as logical possible. If "faith is an absence of logic," which I will love forever that you said, then I will always be disappointed with the blindly faithful.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Faith in a higher being is no different.
    You're right. It should be dismissed just as summarily as every other illogical belief anyone has ever held.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I'm sure AKA has a family member, significant other, pet, etc. she loves. I could just as easily ask "prove it". After all, science tells us that love is simply a chemical reaction in the brain that resembles an addiction. But we all know love is deeper than that and it's different for every person.

    At the end of the day, we have to accept, on faith, that love is real and not the vapid description of some scientist
    I do have people I love. But please do not tell me what I know. I do not "know love is deeper" than anything. It may make you feel good to say it, but saying love is deeper than whatever does not make it deeper than whatever.

    Everything we feel--every single thing--is brain-based. If you have some way of doing or feeling anything that does not relate to your brain, which is a tangle of tissue and chemicals, then please tell us.
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




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
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland