I dont understand how anyone can believe in any of this after watching Ancient Aliens.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
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.
"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.
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.
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:
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 Godelís 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."
" 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. Godelís 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.