Belief and science

[Bender]

Deep in our hearts, right or wrong values are ingrained.. And it is natural to us humans, so it seems to me that it contradicts the idea that absolutely, life has no purpose because, we feel naturally and involuntarily that there are right or wrong values ingrained in our hearts..

The concept of values is ingrained in our DNA, e.g. when we behave socially, substances are released in our brain to make us feel good. It is those substances that you "feel", nothing more.

 

What the values are exactly, is highly cultural.

[Strange]

I want to show to you which worldview is better and that is my worldview...

 

 

You mean you want to ignore science and just do some more preaching.

[Itoero]

An agnostic/scientific worldview is imo the only valid worldview.

I'm atheist because I'm agnost.

 

There is also agnostic theism.

They acknowledge the existence of god but are agnostic regarding the properties of God.

[swansont]

Nothing produces nothing and how can nothing produces particles if nothing only produces nothing?

 

 

 

You can't assert this and pretend that it's not an assertion. It's a premise or postulate, not a conclusion or a fact. You are employing circular logic.

[dimreepr]

An agnostic/scientific worldview is imo the only valid worldview.

 

 

Then you're rather arrogant and blind to so much potential.

No different to 'Randolpin'.

[Raider5678]

An agnostic/scientific worldview is imo the only valid worldview.

Closed minded.

Kinda hypocritical don't you say?

[Itoero]

Then you're rather arrogant and blind to so much potential.

 

No different to 'Randolpin'.

So you think it's arrogant to form your worldview purely based on 'evidence'?

I don't know things which are unknowable.

Closed minded.

Kinda hypocritical don't you say?

Why hypocritical?

[dimreepr]

So you think it's arrogant to form your worldview purely based on 'evidence'?

 

No, but I do think it's arrogant to assume; there's no evidence of life beyond our planet or that humans are the most intelligent animal on it, but "so long and thanks for all the fish".

Science has many questions, but very few answers, does that sound like an anchor to steady any sort of worldview?

[Itoero]

No, but I do think it's arrogant to assume; there's no evidence of life beyond our planet or that humans are the most intelligent animal on it, but "so long and thanks for all the fish".

 

Science has many questions, but very few answers, does that sound like an anchor to steady any sort of worldview?

You put words in my mouth. A scientific worldview or mindset means that you are open for all evidence.

 

-There might be life on other planets but there is no evidence...

-It depends what you define as intelligence.

[iNow]

I suspect the confusion here is with peoples interpretation of the term agnostic.

 

Most assume it means "don't know about this god thing so I'm 50/50." That's just wrong, though.

 

Agnosticism is a position of knowledge.

Atheism/Theism are positions of belief.

 

One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. One can believe or not believe in god(s) and also acknowledge the impossibility of being certain about the accuracy of this stance.

[Itoero]

the impossibility of being certain about the accuracy of this stance.

This is for me a very important point of view.

Science is a never ending search towards ultimate reality/truth. Therefor a scientific worldview changes.

 

There are many beliefs based on science...those beliefs become science when they are 'proven'.

[dimreepr]

One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. One can believe or not believe in god(s) and also acknowledge the impossibility of being certain about the accuracy of this stance.

 

There are many beliefs based on science...those beliefs become science when they are 'proven'.

 

when you miss the point do you always point to the place?

[Raider5678]

This is for me a very important point of view.

Science is a never ending search towards ultimate reality/truth. Therefor a scientific worldview changes.

 

There are many beliefs based on science...those beliefs become science when they are 'proven'.

If all of science pointed to life being impossible to just spontaneously appear, you still wouldn't believe in God.

If all of science pointed to the Universe being spontaneously created out of nothing, you still wouldn't believe in God.

If all of science pointed to there being a God, I know for certain, you would still deny it.

[Strange]

Science is a never ending search towards ultimate reality/truth.

 

 

No it isn't.

 

 

 

There are many beliefs based on science...those beliefs become science when they are 'proven'

 

Nonsense.

[Itoero]

when you miss the point do you always point to the place?

That statement was not a reaction on iNow...it was 'random'.

If all of science pointed to life being impossible to just spontaneously appear, you still wouldn't believe in God.

If all of science pointed to the Universe being spontaneously created out of nothing, you still wouldn't believe in God.

If all of science pointed to there being a God, I know for certain, you would still deny it.

It's for people like you they came up with the word: religitard

Many people must have explained you how that does not prove God but you post it anyway.

 

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

 

Nonsense.

I explained you this before I think.

-People are creating ASO-therapies to 'cure' diseases. Such a therapy is based on science and becomes science when it's shown it works.

-The holographic principle concerns a belief based on science but when it's sufficiently proven, it becomes science.

-Wormholes concern beliefs based on science and it becomes science when it's proven.

...

[Strange]

Yes it is.

 

 

How can it be? Newton's theory of gravitation is completely different from Einstein's and yet they are both accepted by science. Neither is "true" in any real sense. They are both just good models.

 

"Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth."

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/truth

 

 

 

I explained you this before I think.

-People are creating ASO-therapies to 'cure' diseases. Such a therapy is based on science and becomes science when it's shown it works.

-The holographic principle concerns a belief based on science but when it's sufficiently proven, it becomes science.

-Wormholes concern beliefs based on science and it becomes science when it's proven.

 

Hypotheses are not beliefs (unless you are totally changing the meaning of belief).

 

Things do not "become" science. Science is a method for testing ideas.

[Randolpin]

 

 

You mean you want to ignore science and just do some more preaching.

That is not what I meant.. I already provided nature evidences for the existence of God and by my best, I will do more..

 

 

You can't assert this and pretend that it's not an assertion. It's a premise or postulate, not a conclusion or a fact. You are employing circular logic.

 

It's clear that nothing produces nothing.. How can nothing without any properties aside from it's nothingness produce something...?

 

Imagine inside an eternal empty box. We all know that eternally it is empty because nothingness inside the box can't create anything.. That's very clear isn't it?

We are divided by our worldviews but it is also important that we know the truth.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Randolpin

[Strange]

The cosmological discovery speaks that the universe originate from nothing.

 

 

There is no scientific evidence that the universe has an origin or was created.

 

If it was created, there is no reason to think it was created from "nothing". There is some speculation that the big bang could have been initiated from a quantum fluctuation, but this is not "nothing" it is the pre-existing quantum vacuum (with a non-zero energy). Otherwise there would be nothing to "fluctuate".

 

 

 

This Entity must exist eternally to avoid infinite regression as what occam's razor said..

 

If you can believe that, then why not just believe that the universe existed eternally (in some form)?

 

After all, you have just introduced a new entity for which there is no evidence, which directly contradicts Occam's Razor.

That is not what I meant.. I already provided nature evidences for the existence of God and by my best, I will do more..

 

 

No you didn't. Your argument seems to be: "I believe the universe was created. It must have been created by something. Therefore it must have been created by my god."

 

This may be an example of the fallacy of begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

 

Really, it is just a series of baseless assumptions:

• You assume creation (because that is what your god did in your mythology).
• You assume this cannot happen by natural means (because you want to propose supernatural means).
• You assume your god created the universe (but why not some other god, gods, or dragons).

 

We are divided by our worldviews but it is also important that we know the truth.

 

And why do you think you know the truth? Perhaps your religion is wrong, but some other religious creation myth is correct.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Strange

[Randolpin]

 

 

 

There is no scientific evidence that the universe has an origin or was created.

 

If it was created, there is no reason to think it was created from "nothing". There is some speculation that the big bang could have been initiated from a quantum fluctuation, but this is not "nothing" it is the pre-existing quantum vacuum (with a non-zero energy). Otherwise there would be nothing to "fluctuate".

 

 

If you can believe that, then why not just believe that the universe existed eternally (in some form)?

 

After all, you have just introduced a new entity for which there is no evidence, which directly contradicts Occam's Razor.

 

 

No you didn't. Your argument seems to be: "I believe the universe was created. It must have been created by something. Therefor it must have been created by my god."

 

This may be an example of the fallacy of begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

 

Really, it is just a series of baseless assumptions:

• You assume creation (because that is what your god did in your mythology).
• You assume this cannot happen by natural means (because you want to propose supernatural means).
• You assume your god created the universe (but why not some other god, gods, or dragons).

 

 

 

The question is," Why our universe exist and not nothingness exist?" if it exist eternally, or I ask it in another form as what Leibniz asked long time ago, "Why there is something rather than nothing?".. The point is why we exist here.. There must be a sufficient reason for this, because nothing exist without a sufficient reason as what Leibniz said long time ago.

Or I will add more.. Why our reality has these kinds of properties and not the other way around ? It seems to me that these properties are chosen to exist because it is specific..

 

 

And why do you think you know the truth? Perhaps your religion is wrong, but some other religious creation myth is correct.

I know the truth because He show it to me..

Edited March 24, 2017 by Randolpin

[Strange]

 

 

The question is," Why our universe exist and not nothingness exist?" if it exist eternally, or I ask it in another form as what Leibniz asked long time ago, "Why there is something rather than nothing?".. The point is why we exist here.. There must be a sufficient reason for this, because nothing exist without a sufficient reason as what Leibniz said long time ago.

 

 

I'm sure one could argue about this for hours and come with all sorts of ideas. One of the might be your god. Another might be someone else's god. Another might be invisible pink unicorns. Another might be "the laws of physics".

 

But this is all just pointless speculation. You can't say any one's guess is better than anyone else's. So it is not evidence for your chosen god (or anyone else's).

 

 

 

Or I will add more.. Why our reality has these kinds of properties and not the other way around ? It seems to me that this properties are chosen to exist because it is specific..

 

Or maybe it was just random chance.

[Raider5678]

1.It's for people like you they came up with the word: religitard

2.Many people must have explained you how that does not prove God but you post it anyway.

1. Religitard is someone who claims things as absolutely true and cannot be argued against based upon a dogmatic religion. Repeatedly claiming the same thing over and over without acknowledging what others say.

Now, I'm not the most popular person here, but I'm sure at least one person or another would confirm that that isn't me.

2. Oh? So you're claiming I'm preaching that science has proven God in that post?

Please. By all means, show me the evidence, and I'll admit guilty.

I said that IF. If is a word that you're probably unfamiliar with. It means perhaps, maybe, but not certain, in the case of a senario.

Example.

I say.

IF the world ends, people will die.

I am not claiming the world is ending. If you don't agree, and think I am claiming the world is ending, then I guess you genuinely thought I was trying to say science had proven God.

What I was saying in fact, was that being closed minded is not helpful for you anymore then it's helpful for anyone.

So perhaps, heed the advice of a 14 year old boy, and try not to be closed minded.

Just saying.

 

Also. Very mature. Negative reps for the win.

 

Perhaps if we could avoid ad hominem attacks and discuss the actual topic posed by the OP, this would go better. Back on topic now.

 

 

1. The question is," Why our universe exist and not nothingness exist?" if it exist eternally, or I ask it in another form as what Leibniz asked long time ago, "Why there is something rather than nothing?".. The point is why we exist here.. There must be a sufficient reason for this, because nothing exist without a sufficient reason as what Leibniz said long time ago.

2. Or I will add more.. Why our reality has these kinds of properties and not the other way around ? It seems to me that these properties are chosen to exist because it is specific..

3. I know the truth because He show it to me..

1. I'm somewhat rooting for you man, but this isn't science. This is philosophy. You said Belief and Science. At this moment, science has no idea what started the universe or what caused it. God is still a chance. But he's not a certainty in the view of science.

 

2. Perhaps they're just random properties? If everything was made of gummy worms, but that's all we had ever known, we would consider it normal.

 

3. Again, not scientifically applicable.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Raider5678

[Randolpin]

 

 

I'm sure one could argue about this for hours and come with all sorts of ideas. One of the might be your god. Another might be someone else's god. Another might be invisible pink unicorns. Another might be "the laws of physics".

 

But this is all just pointless speculation. You can't say any one's guess is better than anyone else's. So it is not evidence for your chosen god (or anyone else's).

 

 

Or maybe it was just random chance.

 

Chance doesn't actually exist. Imagine you toss a coin and land to the ground. Somebody will call that the chance is whether heads or tails but actually it is not a chance.. You can actually predict whether the coin will be heads or tails if you know the pre-established factors such as the amount of force you exerted to toss the coin, the air currents, the friction, the type of ground it landed.. As you see there are already pre-established factors that determine the outcome of the coin whether it will be heads or tails.. It could be liken to the origin of the universe.. It is not merely chance but determined by some pre-established factors..

[Raider5678]

 

Chance doesn't actually exist. Imagine you toss a coin and land to the ground. Somebody will call that the chance is whether heads or tails but actually it is not a chance.. You can actually predict whether the coin will be heads or tails if you know the pre-established factors such as the amount of force you exerted to toss the coin, the air currents, the friction, the type of ground it landed.. As you see there are already pre-established factors that determine the outcome of the coin whether it will be heads or tails.. It could be liken to the origin of the universe.. It is not merely chance but determined by some pre-established factors..

Pre-established factors.....

Physics perhaps?

 

And what about quantum physics? I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that has chance in it.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Raider5678

[Strange]

I know the truth because He show it to me..

 

 

Well, that is very sweet. But that is what people of other religions say as well. You can't all be right.

 

Chance doesn't actually exist. Imagine you toss a coin and land to the ground. Somebody will call that the chance is whether heads or tails but actually it is not a chance.. You can actually predict whether the coin will be heads or tails if you know the pre-established factors such as the amount of force you exerted to toss the coin, the air currents, the friction, the type of ground it landed..

 

No you can't because you would need more information is available (see chaos theory). And, ultimately, the behaviour would depend on quantum events which are random.

[Randolpin]

Pre-established factors.....

Physics perhaps?

 

And what about quantum physics? I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that has chance in it.

 

Then why this is the type of physical laws we have and not the other way around? It could be also from other physical laws and this "other physical laws" from other physical laws and so on and so forth, until we have an infinite regression?