Re: WTHOT: For John P, But About Books

On 12 Jun 2006 17:59:14 -0700, "Jane" <JaneHadd@xxxxxxx> wrote:


Jr@Ease wrote:

My opinion comes from the scientific side of the logical argument, in
that there is no testable evidence for the existence of god, or the
supernatural, so hence it's irrational to believe in something for
which there is no evidence. I understand the intense personal and
revelatory evidence many people feel, and that they may otherwise be
perfectly rational and logical folk; however, to me, their belief is
still illogical. THEY may be logical, but their belief is not, if that
makes ...ummm.... logical sense.


Not really. Let's stick to the scientific side of things.

Whether you believe in God or not comes down to your answer to this
question:
why is there something rather than nothing?

There is NO evidence to support an answer to that question, at the
moment. We can say that matter existed eternally and infinitely, if we
like--but then, where did the matter come from? Why is there matter at
all? Why is there energy? Why isn't there just nothing, period--a
black void, no us, no planets, no black holes.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

LOGICALLY, all you can do is speculate. Even your decision that
there's something because, well, there is, it always existed and always
will, is no more scientific, no more logical, no more rational than
their decision that somebody or something existing outside our known
sphere of reference must have caused it to be. (In fact, it mirrors
exactly Christian theological arguments for the existence of God. You
say matter always is, was, and will be, they say God always is, was and
will be--neither statement has any scientific validity whatsoever.)

But there are good inferential reasons for both sides of that
answer. For the atheist side, there's the simple fact that we know
matter IS here. We can see it and touch it. And the law of
conservation of matter and energy says that neither matter nor energy
is ever created or destroyed. They just change forms. Of course, that
doesn't explain how they got here in the first place, but it's neither
illogical nor irrational to assume that they just sort of are.

On the other hand, there are good inferential reasons for the
theist side, too. Nothing we know of simply pops into existence out of
nothing. And even if something did (as some quantum physicists
speculate may be the case with certain kinds of particles), we'd still
need to explain why it did that. In the actual world in which we live,
everything that comes to be that was not does so because something or
somebody caused it to be. Therefore, looking for the cause of that
"something" is perfectly rational.

So, either way, you end up taking a big leap of faith--you make
an assumption for which you have no evidence, and in fact as of now CAN
HAVE no evidence.

Your belief that something exists rather than nothing is no more
rational or logical than their belief that something exists because
something or somebody caused it to.

For me, like I said, it's just a matter of temperament. For
most of the believers I know, my belief that something is here rather
than nothing because it just is is wildly irrational.

Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com

I have to agree with Jane. All of science is based on faith in
unproven assumptions.

Remember that Popper proposed his falsification test because no amount
of confirming evidence will prove a theory true but one experiment can
prove a theory false.

Newton started with an unproved assumption that F = ma. One could take
this as a definition of force or of mass but I prefer to think of it
as an unproven assumption. It worked for 250 years and is still used
to design automobiles and airplanes and electric motors and all your
every day tools and appliances.

Every time you use your car, you are testing it. Every time you hit
the keys on your keyboard you are testing it. Its tested and works
billions of times a day.

Yet its now considered wrong or at best an approximation.

Einstein started his theory of relativity with an unproven assumption
that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Why should this
be true? No one knows. We do know that the assumption yields Newtonian
mechanics as a lower limit if velocity is small compared to the speed
of light but yields very different predictions at velocities close to
the speed of light. Experiments are consistent with relativity but
this does not prove relativity correct.

Planck started with the unproven assumption that energy is quantized.
Schrodinger eventually found a mathematical equation which predicted
quantized energy. Why does the equation hold? No one knows.

Physicists simply assume that the speed of light is the same for all
observers and that Shrodinger's equation is correct and follow the
math.

But they have no proof that the assumptions are true and no
explanation of why they hold.

Science is just as much a matter of faith as religion.
--
John Oliver
jdoliver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> if you accept the existence of God, ... >> Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ... >>> have throughout recorded history, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is there a god?
    ... ordinary human beings", "conceived by any human being, no matter ... St. Anselm's definition works especially well: God is not completely ... According to your definition "X is an animal" is evidence for "X is ... different ontologies can be equivalent in practice. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"
    ... means that the existence of such creator is possible. ... "wilfull ingorance" that science has already provided conclusive evidence ... that God does not exist, and so a continued belief in such a God is just ... In some Christian traditions, yes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Liberty U" -- gotta laugh....
    ... philosophical arguments for the existence of God. ... evidence, are menaingless in terms of trying to prove that any deity ... You keep saying that without offering any support for your claim. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
Loading