View Single Post
      11-29-2007, 04:35 PM   #106
M0011
Major General
M0011's Avatar
1711
Rep
5,106
Posts

Drives: ∞ Improbability Drive
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: FL

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den View Post
but the truth isnt contingent on anyone. truth is truth no matter what you believe. so, it's still up in the air isn't it? God could be real. or maybe not. the fact is, no one can prove anything.

consider this for example. how do we know that on a good day, the sky is blue? maybe everyone's eyes are screwed up somehow and what we see as blue is really green. so.. does that make the sky blue or green?

let's take the above example as truth for a moment. you're going to be the guy that will believe the sky is blue because that is what you see. people of religious faith will believe that the sky is green because in some ancient book somewhere, it says the sky is really green, but we see blue because our eyes are messed up.

or maybe this book will be wrong and say the sky is red. then everyone is wrong. you see? the truth is not contingent on what we believe or think we know.

i believe that the sky, on a good day, is truly blue because i have faith that my eyes are telling me the truth.

so here's my point. science can only explain what we can observe and measure and reproduce. but don't you think that there are things that we can't see? or measure? or reproduce? if science can't explain something, isn't any conclusion after that based on faith? additionally, what if what we see, measure or reproduce isn't true to begin with? won't any conclusion based on it be wrong?

when it comes to God, you're as much a man of faith as everyone else.

anyway, this is off topic. you're better off challenging christians in the thread here about Jesus.
All valid points.

My main point in this debate is that there is a lot we don’t know. That science hasn't figured out. But we must not explain the unknown with God, because, learning and search for truth would stop right there and then.

if science can't explain something, isn't any conclusion after that based on faith?

If you mean faith in god:
Please be patient. Don't jump to conclusion that currently inexplicable proves existence of supernatural. Science is hard work and it takes time to answer big questions.

If you mean faith as a way of reaching into unknown and proposing hypothesis:
Science is very strict about this. If you have a extraordinary theory, it must withstand an extraordinary scrutiny before it becomes accepted. At the first evidence that causes it to crumble, it will be rejected.

additionally, what if what we see, measure or reproduce isn't true to begin with? won't any conclusion based on it be wrong?

Well, now we are entering the area of deep philosophy and Matrix movies.
Is it possible? Yes. But we must start somewhere and trust our senses because laws of science that came from those senses are testable and repeatable.

Have you ever been in Hong Kong? (If you have, use a city that you haven't been in). How do you know if it really exists? Philosophically, you don't.
But with this mindset, we'd be paralyzed to do anything.
So you apply critical thinking and say: Is it likely that there is a conspiracy about Hong Kong existence? Are all the evidence…photos, satellite images etc are just there to convince me in it's existence? What would be the motive? Who would profit from that? Or is it just more simple and elegant explanation that it exists. This is called Occam’s razor.


RELIGION TAKES AUTHORITY AS THE TRUTH. SCIENCE TAKES TRUTH AS AUTHORITY.
__________________
///f80 YMB/SS 6MT ZCP | f80 | f30 |e92 | tt | S5 | e92 | 350z | e90 |