The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread

[Rirenil Masdo]

Science and religion are fundamentally different based on the one key concept - that scientific theories can be disproven.
 ....

Religion cannot be disproven.  There is no way to disprove God or gods. 

Using scientific theory, one could say, 'there is no god.  prove me otherwise'  and your point is turned 180.  it is more correct to say, "Religion cannot be disproven or proven.  There is no way to disprove or find proof of God or gods."

as far as science and religion always having to be separated:
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BKfkw1aOiE
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4

[Pierre]

Illysia, I like what you said.  Let's be precise though:  You can investigate.  It's not an experiment.  In the scientific sense of the word.

That's all I meant.  There is no experiment that could disprove a religion, at least not one that's lasted a while (i.e. has some depth, more than "god will strike you dead if you cross those mountains" and the first fellow over waves and smiles).

But investigation, ah yeah.  And quite rigorous investigation too.  Although I think for me finding a religion would be more an emotional journey than an intellectual one.  But I know many go about it differently. 

So!  Hushing now.

[EDIT:  Rirenil - a very precise reason why I chose to say religion cannot be disproven instead of saying it cannot be disproven or proven - because that is where it differs from science.]

[Eonwind]

Funny enough the science has proven many times scientific facts thought to be irrefutable have been proven false and superseded by new theories.

No, Eonwind, and you actually get this right later on - there are no scientific "facts" that have proven false.  Facts ≠ theories.  Many scientific theories have been proven false and/or been superseded by more encompassing theories.

What I meant and I admit it was not explained fully is there have been theories deemed as fact and that they matched the "facts" (experiments and actual data) until new "facts" have been discovered and made it raised questions about the old theory and when more evidence were gathered proved it false. Given that I think (opinion) the point still stand.

I'm not arguing that religion is not real. Religion is very real. I am arguing that god, the basis for these theistic religions, is unfounded and hence cannot be treated as if it is real and factual.

It is not sufficient to just dismissively say that I'm wrong. You need to add some substance to your assertion. Tell me why you believe what you are saying is true. If you are right, then I may learn something in the process.

Sure I can tell you why I believe but that is part of my personal experience as human being, sure I can share but that will probably mean nothing for you because you didn't experience it. Could be you never will or maybe you will one day.
However one thing to remember about philosophy and religion which make it very different from science is at one point you're asked to take a side to make a jump "of faith". Please note you're not required to take side by another person but your own conscience at one point (I know this is not very clear but it's a difficult concept to explain in a few words) and this by no mean is giving up any piece of personal freedom (aka it's not that someone not making a choice is more free than I am).

Regarding your bad experience with religious groups and keeping in mind what I said above about taking a "side" I understand they believe in their ideology and say it's true but a christian is not a christian if he/she refuse to confront himself with the others even with not believers (which doesn't mean trying to proselytize them) a christian search for god and search for the truth (beware! truth to be understood as a philosophical, not strictly mathematical concept) is neverending. I doubt about the authenticity of the faith of someone without doubts, and I suggest you do the same.

I disagree. One, religion is not some lump some concept, it is as complicated as, well, most other human experiences. Two, there is very little reason to not confront them on the same plane if they concern the same universe and confront the same aspects of that universe. The concepts spill over into each other quite a bit due to commenting on similar things like people, how we are supposed to live, and what our purpose is. Which I believe was the actual starting issue.

I disagree with your disagreement, you can't take two random stuff even if the same universe and measure them against the same property. e.g. (just to stay in the science theme) you can't just take a proton and a photon and hope to put them on a balance: one simply has no weight. Full stop
Problem starts when one or the latter starts flooding each other like when science try to argue against the existence of a god or when religion starts arguing whether the earth is flat or round.

@Rigwyn: I have a question for you  - and beware I'm leading you into a trick - you've been speaking about god(s) now please give me the scientific definition of a god.

[Rirenil Masdo]

With respect to Carl Sagan, somewhat refuted. Not every one's religion has god's in their form, not everyone's religion places them above their fellows, not every religion tells people how to live, not every religion is Christianity.

...

Further, it's 6 minutes not one.

I was going to go with this one from the archives as well, but Feynman was never the smooth talker as much as Sagan was.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4 

it's 4 minutes instead of 6 though

And if science says we are at the top of the food chain because we are the evolutionary current end product, what is the difference from another system that will conveniently put us above others?

slippery slope counterpoint:

Dogs are only at the top of the food chain in places where Humans allow them to be at the top of the food chain.. And if we create an environment and allow the dog to thrive at his will, that would by our definition, make us more than co-inhabitants in the view of the dog, we would be god to the dog. Since that is how we humans define our own god.

[Eonwind]

Science and religion are fundamentally different based on the one key concept - that scientific theories can be disproven.
 ....

Religion cannot be disproven.  There is no way to disprove God or gods. 

Using scientific theory, one could say, 'there is no god.  prove me otherwise'  and your point is turned 180.  it is more correct to say, "Religion cannot be disproven or proven.  There is no way to disprove or find proof of God or gods."

Nope you can't turn that so easily, it's not a valid scientific reasoning because science (which is a method and nothing else) does not rely on others to prove your theory. You make a thesis and put your thesis under test, if the experiment turn as expected then go ahead and experiment more... but I save you sometime none has been able to prove this thesis or falsify it

[Rirenil Masdo]

Nope you can't turn that so easily, it's not a valid scientific reasoning because science (which is a method and nothing else) does not rely on others to prove your theory. You make a thesis and put your thesis under test, if the experiment turn as expected then go ahead and experiment more... but I save you sometime none has been able to prove this thesis or falsify it

counterpoint: the Riemann Hypothesis challenge.  prove it true or false, and you win the one million cash prize.

not a math nerd?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6c6uIyieoo

http://www.claymath.org/millenium-problems/riemann-hypothesis



also, i'm going to really blow your mind now: 

[Illysia]

I disagree with your disagreement, you can't take two random stuff even if the same universe and measure them against the same property. e.g. (just to stay in the science theme) you can't just take a proton and a photon and hope to put them on a balance: one simply has no weight. Full stop
Problem starts when one or the latter starts flooding each other like when science try to argue against the existence of a god or when religion starts arguing whether the earth is flat or round.

A scientist may say the purpose of a human is to reproduce and make more humans. A religious person may say the purpose of a human is to serve god. One subject two explanations, to reconcile the two issue you now have to put them on the same same plane.

I was going to go with this one from the archives as well, but Feynman was never the smooth talker as much as Sagan was.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4 

it's 4 minutes instead of 6 though

I actually like Feynman's thinking on the matter better even if I don't fully agree. However, a couple of points. It's not the simplicity of a point that makes it impossible. Most of universe is quite elegant thus allowing for fairly "simple" statements of "laws" that govern it. The problem is not how simple a thing is.

As for being provincial, keeping in mind he is only talking about Christianity, the description may or may not be wrong depending on who you hear from, but that doesn't mean that it is completely divorced from all reality or possibility. It's not unlike saying the president of the US came to another country instead of saying, a presidential delegation came. You can quibble over the details but if there was a representative of the US government in another country then the substance is there whether details have been skewed or not. And further you can't extend that to "we can't tell if the US even has a president" simply because someone skewed the details. If you have no way of talking to the president of the US yourself then you simply have to look for the right details within what you do have access to.

Further, on God being related to humans in human scales and terms, there really isn't much sense in relating the story on a grand scale that humans have no concept of. Look how much resistance there is to the idea when it is kept "local". Imagine how much of a snit people would get in if the explanation was told completely in reference to worlds, people, or realms we would not even have the ability to discern for thousands of years. But we know earth, we know humans, it's just a point of reference, not necessarily the grand sum total of everything ever.

slippery slope counterpoint:

Dogs are only at the top of the food chain in places where Humans allow them to be at the top of the food chain.. And if we create an environment and allow the dog to thrive at his will, that would by our definition, make us more than co-inhabitants in the view of the dog, we would be god to the dog. Since that is how we humans define our own god.

The difference being that Humans are, in no version of the story, the originator of the Dogs as a species. Even if you go with selective breeding, the wolves were there previously. Only some of the issue is covered by having greater power over the dog and his environs. But to be honest, your dog is a bad example. He already thinks you're the greatest thing since sunshine, that he sun rises and falls at your behest, and that you are the provider of the good things in life. *snicker*

I'm no expert on the current MLP but I do think he just found away to finally put ponies in this discussion.

[Pierre]

... but I save you sometime none has been able to prove this thesis or falsify it

* Pierre puts away his meter stick and thermometer, looking relieved 

And Rirenil, you have just put your finger upon the difference between science and mathematics.  So, not a counterpoint.

But a lovely illumination of why mathematics is so awesome.

[Rigwyn]

Try to disprove sldkfjsd.

To me ( Yes, a subjective statement this time), god and sldkfjsd are thus of equal worth.

Illy, with all due respect, I think I answered most of your replies. I'm not ignoring you, I'm just getting a little worn out. If there is any particular one that I *glossed over* then please point it out and I promise to address it.

I don't view science, scientists and scientific works as perfect. Scientists are people and people screw up in amazing ways. The scientific method is a great tool for finding truth. Is it perfect? I have no idea, but its the best tool that I know of to date.

There have been horrific experiments done in the past, and surely are still being performed today. I have no doubts about that.

As for religions being a tool for herding the masses, I honestly think that this varies and is due more to humans being pricks than anything else. I agree that some religious leaders have used religions to manipulate and gain power, but it's not fair to say that all do this - even if it looks like it.

Painting science with the same brush, some of these science shows that we see on TV nowadays do look a little cultish. We are presented with all sorts of wonderful graphical representations of planets and stars, and are told the *the story of the universe* with seemingly unquestionable omniscient certainty. I wish these shows made clear the difference between accepted fact and theory. Some things are inferred via measurement and deduction, but that is not really highlighted.

Keep in mind Rig, that until you can prove that God does not exist, you are doing the same thing. You can make a point for religions being loopy, but that is a different claim from God not existing. You have no substance for your assertion that God is unfounded.

unĀ·foundĀ·ed
ˌənˈfoundid/
adjective
adjective: unfounded

    1.
    having no foundation or basis in fact.
    "her persistent fear that she had cancer was unfounded"
    synonyms:   groundless, baseless, unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unverified, unattested, unjustified, without basis, without foundation;

----

Just in case you interpreted my last comment as some form of sarcasm ( and it was not meant that way ):

"You have no substance for your assertion that God is unfounded."

My assertion is: god has no basis or foundation in fact, therefore, god is unfounded.

If you are going to say that god is factual, then we need to revisit the whole bit about science and proof and whatnot. We will need to look at your assertion and find the substance so that we have something to run with.

[Illysia]

Try to disprove sldkfjsd.

To me ( Yes, a subjective statement this time), god and sldkfjsd are thus of equal worth.

And that is only as far as you can take that. You can only state how you treat it not on the full nature of the issue.

Illy, with all due respect, I think I answered most of your replies. I'm not ignoring you, I'm just getting a little worn out. If there is any particular one that I *glossed over* then please point it out and I promise to address it.

You have only just now qualified your statements which is what I've been to get you to do for the last how ever many pages. However, you probably are not as tired of this round about discussion as I am as I've had this one with you like 3 or 4 times previous to now and somehow we keep rehashing the exact same territory.

unĀ·foundĀ·ed
ˌənˈfoundid/
adjective
adjective: unfounded

    1.
    having no foundation or basis in fact.
    "her persistent fear that she had cancer was unfounded"
    synonyms:   groundless, baseless, unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unverified, unattested, unjustified, without basis, without foundation;

I will take unconfirmed but notice how many definitions of "fact" have floated around in this thread.

If you are going to say that god is factual...

I haven't once addressed whether god is there or not. In fact, I don't think the rest addressed it either. What we're talking about is science and it's ability to quantify God well enough to form experiments that would prove the existence or disprove it.

[Volki]

I am God.

[Rigwyn]

Perhaps, Volki. If that's the case, then the existence of god indeed provable, AND she is female after all!

But this begs a much bigger question.....

Is the universe ( our planet and ourselves included )  real, or is the universe just an intricate dream?


If life is just a dream, then god may very well exist or un-exist if I will it on some level.
How do I know if its all just a fignment of my imagination?

[Illysia]

Define a dream, define reality. However, something has to exist for there to be a representation of it, but the substance of things vary which may account for the difference. For instance, you may dream about getting hit in the arm and all the sensations were the same but the substance is different. But say you can make it so that getting hit in the arm will make your body undergo the same effect in connection with your dream. If your physical arm reacts, was it real?

[Rigwyn]

Define a dream, define reality.

Well, I always thought that I was me, and you were you... and the trees and lakes were real. I've always thought of myself as a physical being in a 3d world - capable of interacting with things. I would call this reality.

A dream or illusion would be like when you close your eyes and go some place. You don't really traverse 3d space, but rather, you imagine it.

So, is the world or universe  "real" as described above, or is it something that I am just imagining?

However, something has to exist for there to be a representation of it

I could have created this universe in my mind. This might be all my creation - my original thoughts. I might not have moulded them after anything.. or they could be thoughts that have been injected into my head by some mysterious entity.

How do I tell?

For instance, you may dream about getting hit in the arm and all the sensations were the same but the substance is different. But say you can make it so that getting hit in the arm will make your body undergo the same effect in connection with your dream. If your physical arm reacts, was it real?

We are equivocating on the word "real". I used the word "real" earlier when I described what I meant by reality, or a 3d world.

You are saying effectively, "Is very the perception within my head regardless of its origin, real"  I want to say yes to this, but I fear this will make your god argument take on new life. I need to think about this some more. I will get back to you xD

[Illysia]

If you created the universe in your mind, then you are still real. What I mean was that for there to be a construct to be unreal in, real must exist, but I suspect "real" is actually relative. That was the point I was making with getting punched in a dream. However, at best, we'd be in a shared imagination since each one imagines they are real and any one point could be the center, if you use that analogy, if there is a singular originating point at all.

... I fear this will make your god argument take on new life.

You really have no idea how much you walked right into another debate about God. I'll give you time to reconsider and back out now.