Battle : Science vs. Religion

[mooeypoo]

Say what?!

 

I am sure if you think that over you will reconsider.

 

If A=B and B=C, then A=C

 

You just made my point.

 

This might be true in mathematics, but it isn't true in logical statements. In fact, this is what you call a logical fallacy.

 

Please read about "Non Sequitor", and "undistributed middle".

 

Example of the form "A=B and C=B therefore C=B" (FALSE)

• Men(A) are (B)human.
• Mary© is (B)human.
• Therefore, Mary© is a (B)man.

 

Example of the form "A=B, B is true therefore A" (FALSE)

• If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
• I am a mammal. (B)
• Therefore, I am a human. (A)

 

There are other examples of this fallacy. It doesn't work in science.

 

 

 

Certain facts (A=B and B=C) in association will show the obvious (A=C). If you do not consider these facts together (A=B and B=C), you do not see the obvious conclusion.

Let's test this:

 

(A=B) God is invisible.

(B=C) Invisible is nonexistent.

(A=C) God is nonexistent.

According to your statement, the above is true. Is it?

 

(A=B) Alex is a man.

(B=C) A man has a beard.

(A=C) Alex has a beard.

This isn't necessarily true.

 

You should really go over logic, ponderer.

 

That said, you are, once again, ignoring my questions. I asked you to lay out the *EVIDENCE* so we can examine them. Instead, you fall back into the "it's so obvious" and it's "axiomatic" and refuse to show us the magnitude of such amazingly convincing set of evidence.

 

That won't work here, ponderer. Even *if* A=B,B=C means A=C (and it doesn't) you still need to give us the obvious A, B and C that will convince us.

 

Without that, you're talking empty claims.

 

It is how science works. It is how axioms work.

I think this is the crux of the problem here. I find it very ironic. Science is not axiomatic. Religion can be, but science is by definition *against* axioms. That's why the scientific methods exist. IT's why we are asking you for your evidence so we can examine them. It's why papers are peer-reviewed and retested again and again.

 

The fact *you* think axiomatically does not mean that's how science works.

 

In any case everyone is upset about my refusal to substantiate my assertion, so I appoligize for breaching the forum rules. I will refrain from making such assertions in the future and keep such things to myself. If I wish to share something I have discovered I will go through a publication process.

 

Everyone is frustrated because you came to a science forum and you refuse to admit you don't know what science means, and how it's done.

 

Multiple people repeatedly tell you that your concept of science is wrong. You seem to think every last one of those people are wrong, and you're the only one who's right. If that's what you think, you should reconsider the forum you discuss in and, perhaps, go to a theism forum. People would love to talk to you about axioms and axiomatic knowledge there.

 

Put up the evidence already so we discuss something of essence. You won't convince anyone without it, because for us this is far from "obvious".

 

~mooey

[ponderer]

Forgive me if I am missing something, but it seems like you've gone "Occams' Razor + reducibility = God axiomatically exists"

 

Occam's Razor states that if observations support two hypotheses equally, the simpler of the two is more likely to be correct. To evaluate the above proof, we need to know what the observations are, what the two competing hypotheses are, how you tested significance and how the you've justified one to be simpler than the other. Otherwise the premise is nonsensical, at least in a scientific context, which is more or less what I think people are taking issue with.

 

The complexity of an explanation within the premise has at its root the number of distinct substances and the associated dynamic geometric description of their distribution and behavior.

 

I don't understand what you are driving at.

 

The relative complexity of geometric shapes and arrangements is fairly straight forward for the most part. However, as a caveat, we must consider that in a reductionist environment, more instances do not equal more complexity. The introduction of more instances is accepted it they are identical and they reduce the complexity of the root explanation. Thus the existence of electrons, protons, and electrons are accepted even though they must exist in countless numbers, resulting in very complex geometry. There are fewer of them in type, than there are of things that would have to each be considered their own primary substance, if they did not exsist, and their dynamic geometry is simpler than the sum of the countless gross geometric shapes into which they can be assembled. In generating a TOE we are concerned with the root geometry of the system, which may be then employed to manifest all else, and not the overall well know geometric complexity of everything out there.

 

Surely you know these things already.

 

And yes, without knowing the observations you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is why I felt safe talking about it to a point.

 

Outing God would be an offense to God. It is for God to come out if and when he is ready. It is not for me to expose him in a way or at a time that he does not wish to be exposed.

 

I am a guest in God's house, and I really like what he has done with the place, and I would like to make a long term commitment, and stick around. I am sure he has his reasons.

[mooeypoo]

And yes, without knowing the observations you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is why I felt safe talking about it to a point.

Then show us the observations. Where are they.

 

Outing God would be an offense to God.

Only if God exists, which is not a proven issue, no matter how deeply you believe it is. Many of us, for that matter, are not convinced, and preaching to us why it is our blindness of the axioms will not help convincing us.

 

It is for God to come out if and when he is ready. It is not for me to expose him in a way or at a time that he does not wish to be exposed.

Replace "God" with anything else, like, say, "Bigfoot" or "Pink Unicorn" or "Alien Invasion" and you will start seeing why this sentence makes absolutely no sense, and helps explain absolutely nothing.

 

I am a guest in God's house, and I really like what he has done with the place, and I would like to make a long term commitment, and stick around. I am sure he has his reasons.

 

Maybe, but we aren't, and some of us are unconvinced that this is the way things work. You are not in a theology forum, ponderer. It's time to go by the rules and start putting up some of those fancy absolutely axiomatic evidence you keep eluding to and never actually POST.

 

~mooey

[Arete]

 

I don't understand what you are driving at.

 

 

 

1) You have no observations or an alternative hypothesis.

 

2) You therefore have no equally well supported hypotheses or justification of how one hypothesis is simpler than the alternative (as no alternative is given).

 

The invocation of Occam's Razor does not make sense or support your position.

[mooeypoo]

From the wiki page:

Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae(the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends from among competing hypotheses selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

(underlying by me)

 

Among competing hypotheses. Obviously, if you have ONE hypothesis, it's the simplest you have, because you have one hypothesis.

 

Here's a good example for how your argument breaks:

 

1. A 'miraculous' cure from disease can be explained by the divine intervention of an almight loving God.

2. A 'miraculous' cure from disease can be explained by the natural rules of physics, chemistry, biology and the intervention of Doctors.

 

Assumption #1 requires that we assume a lot of unknowns:

God exists (unknown)

God is good (unknown)

God intervened in this particular case (unknown)

 

Assumption #2 requires that we assume a lot less unknowns. Here's what you have to assume for #2:

Doctors exist. (known)

Doctors cure illnesses many times. (known)

Diseases might go on spontaneous remission due to treatment (known)

 

 

Occham's razor states that you take these available options (and you can suggest other options too), and the most probably true one is the one that requires the least amount of new assumptions.

 

Which would you say that is? #1 or #2?

 

You seem to be quite happy using science terms when it suits you, and ignoring it when it doesn't. For sicence to work for your purpose, you need to supply alternate hypotheses and, most importantly of all, evidence.

 

I'm still waiting.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

And yes, without knowing the observations you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is why I felt safe talking about it to a point.

 

Outing God would be an offense to God. It is for God to come out if and when he is ready. It is not for me to expose him in a way or at a time that he does not wish to be exposed.

 

I am a guest in God's house, and I really like what he has done with the place, and I would like to make a long term commitment, and stick around. I am sure he has his reasons.

 

I think this is a cop-out. If God is omnipotent and does not want to come out of the spiritual closet, then there is nothing you can do to out him/her/it. So answer the questions put to you.

[ponderer]

You just made my point.

 

This might be true in mathematics, but it isn't true in logical statements. In fact, this is what you call a logical fallacy.

 

Please read about "Non Sequitor", and "undistributed middle".

 

Example of the form "A=B and C=B therefore C=B" (FALSE)

 

 

Example of the form "A=B, B is true therefore A" (FALSE)

 

 

There are other examples of this fallacy. It doesn't work in science.

 

 

 

 

Let's test this:

 

(A=B) God is invisible.

(B=C) Invisible is nonexistent.

(A=C) God is nonexistent.

According to your statement, the above is true. Is it?

 

(A=B) Alex is a man.

(B=C) A man has a beard.

(A=C) Alex has a beard.

This isn't necessarily true.

 

You should really go over logic, ponderer.

 

That said, you are, once again, ignoring my questions. I asked you to lay out the *EVIDENCE* so we can examine them. Instead, you fall back into the "it's so obvious" and it's "axiomatic" and refuse to show us the magnitude of such amazingly convincing set of evidence.

 

That won't work here, ponderer. Even *if* A=B,B=C means A=C (and it doesn't) you still need to give us the obvious A, B and C that will convince us.

 

Without that, you're talking empty claims.

 

 

I think this is the crux of the problem here. I find it very ironic. Science is not axiomatic. Religion can be, but science is by definition *against* axioms. That's why the scientific methods exist. IT's why we are asking you for your evidence so we can examine them. It's why papers are peer-reviewed and retested again and again.

 

The fact *you* think axiomatically does not mean that's how science works.

 

 

 

Everyone is frustrated because you came to a science forum and you refuse to admit you don't know what science means, and how it's done.

 

Multiple people repeatedly tell you that your concept of science is wrong. You seem to think every last one of those people are wrong, and you're the only one who's right. If that's what you think, you should reconsider the forum you discuss in and, perhaps, go to a theism forum. People would love to talk to you about axioms and axiomatic knowledge there.

 

Put up the evidence already so we discuss something of essence. You won't convince anyone without it, because for us this is far from "obvious".

 

~mooey

 

I have appologized to the forum for making an assertion which I refuse to substantiate. I have conceded your point about forum rules. Yes you are right about that. But that's all you have, and it is not even related to the assertion itself.

 

I am exercising great patience with you. It is good training. Thanks for that. I have needed to learn more patience. In the past I would have torn a strip off you so wide you would be feeling it for some time, using words like pompous, arrogant, and clueless. This is wonderful progress for me.

 

A=B B=C so A=C was not part of the proof, it was just a metaphor to explain the simple english which you somehow failed to comprehend, which really inspires me to feel your competence. You seem to have serious reading comprehension skills. This is because you have a negative filter that must view anything I say as being flawed. Even if nothing said is flawed, but it can be misinterpreted in a way that is flawed, you will do that. If I have not exposed a supposed flawed, so you just assume it.

 

Tell me what part of the simplest geometry lends itself to flights of fancy? Geometry is mathematics. You have read this now explain yourself. It is plain simple english once more. Show your high powers of reasoning and comprehension.

 

What makes you think, anything besides the initial premise and mathematics was used?

 

You have no idea how the math and/or logic have been applied, so you have no basis for being critical of the process.

 

You are making assumptions left and right. All of them negative and critical.

 

But, I did say to condescend some more if it makes you feel better, so I hope you feel better.

 

If you want to be critical and sink your teeth into something, the premise is the first step of the process, the only part you will ever see. Here's your chance to show what a fool I am. Tell me what's wrong with the premise and how it is unscientific and how it shows I do not know what I am doing. That's why I posted it. Forget I claimed to prove that God exists. I have appologized for making the assertion. Now let us set it aside. Pretend that I have come to you with this idea for finding a TOE. Tell me why this is a bad premise for a TOE. Tell me why it makes no sense, and why it fails to take this or that into account. Tell me why such a premise belongs on a theology forum, and is just bad science. Put it to bed before it even gets started.

 

That is all you actually have to go on. It is the only thing you have to criticize besides my refusal to explain further.

It is the actual first step in the proof.

 

You want to unload, there is your chance. After the premise that are no other assumptions.

 

After the premise, there is no escaping the conclusion. At first it looks like that can't be right. How can that be? That can't be possible. There must be other explanations, that will come to you later. You retrace and rethink, but once you consider it long enough and look at it from different angles, there is no way out, except to reject the premise. So reject it already.

 

I know you want more to go on, but I have told you why I will not provide it. You have only the intial premise to criticize.

 

You are making unsubstantiated assertions now about me. Now prove you are right, or go somewhere else where attacking other people is considered acceptable.

 

Better yet. Just let it go. Seriously. You don't believe it or in God. Why are you even in a religion forum except to "set believers straight"?

 

Nobody expects the spanish science inquisition!

 

Let me fill you in. It is a science site, and there are many science forums. In a science forum you expect that participants will actually believe in science and have a positive outlook about the usefulness of science and will contribute discussion in that light. Detractors are sent away.

 

In a religion forum you would expect people to believe in religion, have a positive outlook about the usefulness of religion, and contribute to the discussion in that light. I am not posting this is a physics forum or a peer reviewed journal.

 

Just what is your motivation and imperative here? Why are you here?

 

If you cannot offer constructive criticism of the premise, the worst you can say justifiably is that it starts well, but you would have to see the rest of it to believe it.

 

Instead you are being hostile and derrogatory. Even insulting.

 

This is why I said you were being emotional. Your responses are not rational. You are taking it personally for some reason.

 

Say, that's a lot better than pompous, arrogant, and clueless. I'm making progress.

 

By the why I said I did not think you were an idiot. You are beginning to change my mind.

Edited November 30, 2011 by ponderer

[mooeypoo]

So, you can't answer any of my actual claims, and instead you resort to explaining why you won't even try, call me names and insist I'm the irrational one. Nice one.

 

I made a point about how logic works, and how science works, and you change the goal post and claim, now, that it was just an example about English.

 

How very convenient.

 

I see no point in continuing this silly little exercise. It's clear you're not here to debate, you're so convinced you are right, you decided everyone else is wrong wihtout even taking a moment to actually listen and consider the actual points that people make.

 

Preaching is comfy. It's hardly science though, and no matter how much you insist it is, that fact won't change.

[Arete]

Tell me what's wrong with the premise and how it is unscientific

 

The premise is fundamentally reliant on two equally supported hypotheses.

 

You have no second hypothesis and no observations.

 

In the absence of these, the premise is entirely nonsensical.

[mooeypoo]

Ponderer will be taking a bit to come back. Let's hope he cooperates with proper discussion when he does.

 

 

 

Moving on, I've been wracking my brain for the past few days -- the whole "A=B, B=C, hence A=C" is killing me, I know there's another fallcy (other than non sequitor) that fits it, and I can't for the life of me remember the name. Anyone has any clue?

[Sorcerer]

Agnostics win.

 

I don't see an absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Sorcerer

[mooeypoo]

Agnostics win.

 

I don't see an absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

 

No one does.

 

We see absence of evidence as insufficient to prove the claim. Doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it also doesn't mean the claim is "axiomatically" right like was claimed here.

[Sorcerer]

Everyone does, pessimist.

[swansont]

Moving on, I've been wracking my brain for the past few days -- the whole "A=B, B=C, hence A=C" is killing me, I know there's another fallcy (other than non sequitor) that fits it, and I can't for the life of me remember the name. Anyone has any clue?

 

"A=B, B=C, hence A=C" is the transitive property. It's true, if both A=B and B=C are true.

[mooeypoo]

"A=B, B=C, hence A=C" is the transitive property. It's true, if both A=B and B=C are true.

 

Right, which is where the example breaks in cases that require belief.

It's also where "non sequitor" comes in. I was sure there's another fallacy that describes something like this, though.

[doG]

Agnostics win.

 

I don't see an absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

Conversely the absence of evidence is not evidence of presence either, i.e. an absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

[swansont]

Right, which is where the example breaks in cases that require belief.

It's also where "non sequitor" comes in. I was sure there's another fallacy that describes something like this, though.

 

If you are proposing the original truth and the use it to conclude the truth of the statement it's a circular argument, or (if an additional premise is unstated) begging the question.

[tar]

Ponderer,

 

Kant suggests (reasons) that time and space are our two pure intuitions. From these we build math (the successive adding over time) and from our intuition of space, Geometry. Although he constructs a rather sound "science of metaphysics" from these two intuitions, and a table of judgements, that describes our understanding, and a table of categories where we use these judgements to understand subjects...he does not seem to think that this gives us a basis for knowing the "thing as it is" directly.

 

You seem to be saying that since you have geometry, and the world has geometry then the world obviously should be had by a person capable of a geometric thought. And since it was not you who created the world, it must be someone like you, only really really bigger and older and more powerful.

 

I could use the same argument, and figure that a snowflake obviously has some understanding of geometry, so the universe is most likely envisioned by a very great and powerful snowflake. Or figure that a large and powerful eternal strand of DNA is behind it all, or perhaps a huge mitochondria. or figure that all these more complicated configurations are just permutations of charge and spin and distance, and therefore the world was created by "nothing" breaking apart into symmetries. In which case God is x-fold symmetry. No more. No less.

 

Or you might take my take, and figure that the universe does not know what it is doing, except for us intuitors, who are both of it, and seek to understand it. And that the universe has not yet done what it is going to do next.

 

In any of these cases, the existence of God does not follow from the fact of geometry.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

or did you mean to say that God is geometry is the universe. In which case the simplist of the three is geometry, and that will suffice to create the universe. In which case we can leave God completely out of it since he is not required and we can't locate him anyway?

 

Ponderer,

 

Sorry, I just remembered that Mooeypoo has you in "time out".

Edited December 2, 2011 by tar

[kla2]

"Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views." What is important about scientific method is that it presupposes ones willingness to change views and opinions when confronted by an undeniable body of direct evidence, And there could be a lot of mind change coming over the horizon! As a humanity, we have all been conditioned or indoctrinated, for all of history by 'theological' exegesis, particularly by those with their own 'religious' claims and agendas, to accept that a literal proof of God [acceptable to science] is not possible for faith. And thus all discussion and apologists 'theodicy' is contained within this self limiting intellectual paradigm and bubble of presumption, especially evident in the frictions between science and religion. It would now appear that all sides squabbling over the God question, religious, atheist and history itself have it wrong! That bubble could now burst at any time!

 

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution is getting under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk With apologies to Shakespeare: To test or not to test that is the question?

[Moontanman]

"Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views." What is important about scientific method is that it presupposes ones willingness to change views and opinions when confronted by an undeniable body of direct evidence, And there could be a lot of mind change coming over the horizon! As a humanity, we have all been conditioned or indoctrinated, for all of history by 'theological' exegesis, particularly by those with their own 'religious' claims and agendas, to accept that a literal proof of God [acceptable to science] is not possible for faith. And thus all discussion and apologists 'theodicy' is contained within this self limiting intellectual paradigm and bubble of presumption, especially evident in the frictions between science and religion. It would now appear that all sides squabbling over the God question, religious, atheist and history itself have it wrong! That bubble could now burst at any time!

 

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution is getting under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk With apologies to Shakespeare: To test or not to test that is the question?

 

 

So yet another interpretation of an already bad work of fiction is going to save the world.... I call horse feathers....

[Phi for All]

Ponderer,

 

Sorry, I just remembered that Mooeypoo has you in "time out".

It wasn't mooeypoo's call, since she's involved in this thread.

[tar]

kla2,

 

I am wondering if you read responses Or just post?

 

Your last post was a restatement of earlier posts, with no comment pro or con on any of the thoughts expressed inbetween.

 

What changed, that will be bringing this movement into the fore?

 

Was there some "event"?

 

Did something change in the world, or did something change in your view of it?

 

Have you been taken by the charisma of a cult leader? Or do you have some evidence that you or anybody else can see, without being TOLD to see it that way?

 

If this new reality can only be seen if you are brainwashed or hypnotised or drugged, then it exists more in your mind that out where I can see it.

 

Telling me again that it is coming, will not do the trick.

 

Tell me where to look to see it coming.

 

And if it has anything to do with "only being able to see if you have "faith"". Then I do not think its coming for me.

 

Just you.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Phi for All,

 

Yeah I forgot that rule. Can't moderate yourself. You lose your whistle when you put on the pads and helmet.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Phi for All]

Phi for All,

 

Yeah I forgot that rule. Can't moderate yourself. You lose your whistle when you put on the pads and helmet.

That's a great way to put it!

[tar]

general science vs. religion comment,

 

I want to find a middle ground and defend it from both sides.

 

I think there is "sense" and "rationality" to considering the universe somehow "parentlike".

I think there is something about us humans that establishes an "internal conversation" with that which came before and will exist after.

I think we are both in and of the universe and therefore have a certain "belonging to it" that can not be denied.

I think it is somewhat understandable to join with others that have come to similar conclusions about the universe that you have.

 

However, I do see many instances of religious leaders usurping the power of the universe, and using their proclaimed special association with it, to divide the world of people into those who agree with them, who are believers with "faith" and those who are in error. This would be fine, if there were no "riders" in the contract, inserted to fulfill the will of the preacher, who in reality has no actual special connection.

Believing in reality is automatic.

Believing that any man or woman has the "correct and only" grasp of it, is somewhat looney. Its way to big, way to old, and way to complicated for that to be the case.

Best we can do is explore it together and get a pretty good feel for the local stuff and perhaps extend some principles to include areas beyond our reach.

 

So I find it hard to "defend" religion when kla2 represents it how he does.

 

Where is the comraderie in "being preached to".

 

If something can not be explained in a way that it "means" something to everybody, its hard for everybody to go along with it. And probably is not true, is not the case, and is not real.

 

I am proposing that there IS a meaning to the concept of GOD that to some extent each of us "knows" what is being referred to. But if in the translation from my concept to your concept there is any disagreement, the misunderstanding is ours, and has no impact on the reality of the thing we each have a concept of.

 

It is complicated to separate reality from our model of it. Peices of truth at least analogous truth are intermingled with error and misinterpreted, especially when the communication of meaning is between two separate minds. On the whole I think the human race has done a fantastic job of finding ways to share "ideas".

 

Just wish scientists would allow themselves a bit more room to dwell in the figurative, and religious people would stick a bit closer to the literal world in which we find ourselves.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ponderer]

I received an email message from the moderator about suspending my account, to which I relied. I ask him to pass on my message.

 

Seems it was too much to ask, so I waited for my account to come unsuspended to pass on my own message.

 

I had been keeping this to myself, but once it got out, I felt I might as well contact someone I could trust to go over it with me, so I could be sure I had done everything correctly.

 

I just happen to have a childhood friend who is quite knowledgeable in the particular area I was working. He specialized in that.

 

We had a discussion and he pointed out where I had made a mistake. (Palm of hand to forehead).

 

So all this discordance was unnecessary. I am retracting my claim to have developed a proof of the existence of God.

 

You can all relax and forget about it.

 

Sorry to have gotten some of you stirred up.

 

Still, I did did not see how it made any difference to anyone's opinion. Without seeing the supposed proof, no one had any reason to take it seriously.

 

It was something I was personally comfortable with, and that I never intended to let out at all. Sadly I reacted emotionally to a challenge letting slip and got dogged over my response.

 

Quite frankly, I felt harassed, about something that I made it clear that I did not care to discuss, with the moderator even threatening me and suspending my account.

 

I made it clear that I did not want to discuss it further on religious grounds, but my religion was not respected.

 

This is a religion forum and if you cannot respect a person's religion on a official basis, I find this to be quite offensive and contrary to standards of human rights.

 

If such harassment is to be tolerated here, I really don't want to be here anymore.

 

I will be leaving now.

 

I wish you all the best.