Reality and Proof

[swordsbane]

If faith is proof then the heavens must be crowded with various gods as a lof people believe in a lot of different gods, Hindus believe in a whole bunch all by themselves. How do these supreme beings all get along? That would seem to be evidence that religion is fantasy. Now the human brain is a lot more complex than we can understand and it is possible there are sound scientific reasons for what passes as miracles that we just don't have enough information to comprehend. An example would be the placebo effect (w)

The placebo effect is quite easy to understand even given our limited knowledge.  The mechanism for controling every aspect of our bodies already exists in everyone.  An analogy is that telephone lines that are laid to every house in the city.  It is a proven fact that the brain sends as well as recieves instructions and information from/to all parts of the body.  The body's immune system is very powerful.  It can destroy any cell in the body, even its own healthy cells.  Given the right trigger, the body can heal itself or self-destruct.  In practice, there are illnesses the body can't deal with, but the mechanism is in place for them to be dealt with.  Most 'cures' are just enhancements to our own natural immune system.  It's much easier to help the body fight off an illness than to do it all from the outside.  Vaccines are a way of teaching our immune system about identifying a virus and destroying it.  There are only three limits on what the human body is capable of, direction from the brain, genetic instructions in our DNA, and energy to provide the power.  Energy can and is provided by drugs.  To some degree, direction is provided directly to the immune system, and we're very close to unlocking (at least partially) the genetic instructions.  What remains to be seen is what are the limits of the brains consious our unconsious ability to control the body.  The infrastructure for that control is already there.  The rest is instruction.  Except for injury, any illness that we can cure with drugs can be cured by the body without anything but energy (food).

  It is entirely possible that things like prayer and placebo's are tapping into that mechanism to fix things in the body that aren't otherwise fixable.  It may not be a consious decision on the part of the patient, but merely a matter of putting the brain in the right enviroment to effect that control.  Placebo's are the same way.  It is generally accepted that the state of mind the patient is in has a distinct affect which is not always quantifiable, but common enough to be verifiable.  If their body reacts to the placebo the same way it reacts to the real drug, then I would be surprised if there wasn't some measurable effect.  Treatments that are foolproof fail for no reason and patients that should have died don't.  Nothing spiritual about it.  It's just a theory with a substantial amount of evidence behind it, that seems to fit all the facts we do know.  It's much easier to wrap my mind around something like that than the idea that if you're nice to God, he grants your prayers.

*edit*

In the mean-time, why would something that science doesn't account for be ridiculous?  Improbable maybe.  But that doesn't make it ridiculous.  Only the people who refuse to accept that they don't know everything call such ideas ridiculous.  Do you really wish to be thrown in with those people?

No, but do you want to be thrown into the same group as those that say "Well you can't prove it wasn't a UFO, so I'm going to believe that aliens abducted my dog."  You can't accept something because there is "no evidence against" any more than you can assume something doesn't exist simply because there is no evidence for.  Unexplained lights in the sky are just that, unexplained lights in the sky.  If you believe in aliens, it is because you choose to believe.

I have not seen one shred of evidence that spirits exist.  Does that mean they don't? no.  But because I can't prove they don't is no license for people to believe they do.

[ Please avoid making one post right after the other in the same thread. Just "Modify" your first post to add more information. --Karyuu ]

[Parallo]

Fact is that there are plenty of people that believe that there are spirits with no reason other than they were told so by their elders. They believe deep in their hearts that this is true when they have no reason to do so. You cannot say that a logical person would think that after giving it some thought. I'd be a spiritual agnostic in so much as I'm a tooth fairy agnostic.

[zanzibar]

But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.

Except that your definition of proof isn't the only definition out there.  To people who believe in faith, faith is a kind of proof.

I don't buy that.

Then how do you explain people who believe that the Bible is a source of literal absolute truth?

If faith is proof then the heavens must be crowded with various gods as a lof people believe in a lot of different gods, Hindus believe in a whole bunch all by themselves. How do these supreme beings all get along? That would seem to be evidence that religion is fantasy. Now the human brain is a lot more complex than we can understand and it is possible there are sound scientific reasons for what passes as miracles that we just don't have enough information to comprehend. An example would be the placebo effect (w)

The point isn't that faith is correct, the point is that there are people who sincerely believe in it - just as there are people who sincerely believe in science - and it's truly impossible to prove who is right because it's all based on assumption.

[swordsbane]

It wouldn't be so bad if people simply said "I don't care if their's no evidence I "KNOW" they exist.  We could part ways and they could believe what they want, and I could believe what I want.

Unfortunately people all over the place say they have "scientific proof" that these things are real, when they actually have no more than an unexplained event and a blip on a monitor, smudge on a photo or an 'eyewitness' who has everything to gain by either lying or embellishing the truth.  I'm sorry, there is not proof.  You can believe anything you want to, and when(if) you have solid evidence, I'll listen with an open mind.  Until then, just because you saw it on Ghost Hunters doesn't mean anything.

[swordsbane]

But Faith is believing without proof or evidence.

Except that your definition of proof isn't the only definition out there.  To people who believe in faith, faith is a kind of proof.

I don't buy that.

Then how do you explain people who believe that the Bible is a source of literal absolute truth?

I'm not about to try to explain those people.  I just know that the reasons THEY give for why they believe the way they do are filled with inconsistencies and conclusions at odds with what science has discovered about the nature of the universe.  Science can point to research, peer-reviewed science (ie repeatable, testable experiments).  People of faith only say "How can you not believe?"  Easy... I have no compelling reason to believe.  From where I'm standing, there's no contest.  I'm not going to tell them their God doesn't exist, just that he doesn't exist for me.  I have no reference points for incorporating him into my world view except as a possibility, and a remote one at that.  That is not enough of a basis to make decisions that will change my whole life.

When you want to convince someone of something, you have to use evidence that they have no choice but to accept.  Those of faith frequently use personal revelation to 'prove' their point which boils down to "I believe.  Why don't you?" and when I tell them why, they don't understand it.

And what's more, even if God does exist, considering all the changes and edits the Bible has gone through and how many denominations there are in the world and how many religions there are each claiming to be the One True Word, even if I wanted to have blind faith in a supreme being, which one do I choose?  Allah, Budda, Dianne, Odin, Isis, Jesus, Jehova.... who's right?  By the law of averages, they're all wrong.  They might have some of it right, but the odds that even one of them got it 100% right is vanishingly small, yet they say they are right and the rest are wrong.

Should I follow God because he's right? or because he's God?  or because I'll go to Hell if I don't?  If God has good ideas, then shouldn't we be more concerned with what he said than the fact that he said it?  If you want to convince someone that a rule that God laid down should be followed, shouldn't you present it outside of the context of it being a commandment from God?  If you can't convince someone of a rule without saying, in effect "Well God said we should do it this way."  then how are you going to be able to convince me that the rule is just if I don't even buy the idea that God is real?  Most skip to the end and try to convince me that I should do what God says (usually for no other reason than that he is God) without trying to convince me that God is real.  It's rather annoying and a little insulting.

[Parallo]

These same people will tell you that god exists outside of the laws and rules of the universe and therefore can't be explained. Linky

[Datruth]

Falsifiablility.

It doesn't allow you prove everything, but it does prove a whole lot.

You ask him questions that would falsify him being your premise.

Such as, is parallo 30 years old.
Then we'd say, if he's 35, he's not thirty.

Want to prove something, find something that would make your premise wrong, then ask questions to see if you were right.

~~Datruth

[swordsbane]

These same people will tell you that god exists outside of the laws and rules of the universe and therefore can't be explained. Linky

Then they can't use scientific points of reference to try to convince me he's real.  I am perfectly willing to believe in something that I have no evidence for or against, but you can't say on the one hand that God can't be explained, and then on the other try to explain him to me.  The faithful are always trying to do that.  The big kick nowadays is Intelligent Design.  They are trying to create a scientific basis for the existence of a creator.  The problem is that the idea of a creator fails the scientific method.  "Never mind that," say ID proponents.  "We know he exists and you can't prove otherwise."

That is utter nonsense.  Either you stick with the "unfathomable unexplainable" and therefore undefinable creator, or you play by scientific rules.  You can't pick and chose which aspects of science you use and which you don't.

[Parallo]

Your willing to believe in something with no evidence either way Swordsbane? There is a tea pot orbiting earth.

Ps: I'm not thirty

[swordsbane]

Your willing to believe in something with no evidence either way Swordsbane? There is a tea pot orbiting earth.

Ps: I'm not thirty

What I meant was that I have no problem with it.  For instance, I'm not against the possibility that aliens visit the Earth on a regular basis and abduct people for scientific experimentation.  However, I have yet to see any evidence that this is taking place.  I have no problem with people believing anyway dispite the lack of evidence.  On the other hand, if you SAY you have scientific evidence, then I expect to see it, not a bunch of vauge notions that seem to suggest that it isn't impossible that you're right.

[Nurahk]

For Dawkins, being a Bright implies being hard on religious people, with good reason in my opinion.

And chosing a thousand of more constants from an infinite amount of choices has a choice of 0+, common notation for the number as close to zero as you can get without being 0.  If you believe there can be a number such as infinity you must believe that there is an inverse to it.

Just thought I'd set a few things straight.

[zanzibar]

Other possible explanations:

Every universe does exist.

The constants are not arbitrary.

The constants are not constant.


And so on.

[Datruth]

Other possible explanations:

Every universe does exist.

The constants are not arbitrary.

The constants are not constant.


And so on.

Nurakh, the second part of your post.. made no sense to me, please reiterate.

As for you Zanzibar, Nothing is absolute.

Everything in this world is relative, we know nothing absolutely.

What we're discussing, is IF our relative views, our eyes, our measurments, WERE correct.

That there is a universe.

IF our relative calculations, and our relative experiences are correct, THEN constants, are constant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's not hard to argue... well, we could all be in the matrix.

Which is what you are saying basically.

I understand that the constants might not be constant, EVEN though we've tested them millions of times.

I understand that.

Everything is relative to our 5 senses, and our measurement tools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But you have to start somewhere, you need something to work with.

And we've been working with what we have.

And today, we have the internet.

I'd say, our calculations are pretty accurate.

Oh, and we also have the ability to go into space, a very costly, and amazing feat.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So do i believe constants are constants, yes.

And do i believe there is a universe, yes.

Have we been flurishing thus far in science, yes.

Could we all be wrong, and everything we thought turned upside down, yes.

Do we know anything absolutely, no.

So please, from now on, Argue from a LOGICAL standpoint, because we all know things could be the opposite of what they appear to be.

Again, because we all have to start somewhere, such as, i am here, at this point.

~~Datruth

[zanzibar]

Nothing is absolute.

A statement Nietzsche would be proud of.

It's not hard to argue... well, we could all be in the matrix.

Which is what you are saying basically.

It's not what I'm saying at all, actually.

Everything is relative to our 5 senses, and our measurement tools.

But we aren't in touch with what's really real.  All we have are our senses which are merely sensations which are merely electric signals in our brain, and there's this whole process of interpretting it before it actually becomes awareness.



I'm not trying to say what is true.  I'm trying to say that people determine what is true in a certain fashion.

[Datruth]

I understand what you mean, i've heard of it from the black box situation.

Basically, you have a back box, something is in it.

You can't see the box, or use your 5 senses to figure out what's in it.

Someone might say, let's just xray the box, you'd still be looking at the xray, using your viision, to determine what is in it.

The actual xray would be fine, but the process of you looking at the results ruins it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Basically the point or premise of the situation is to show you no matter what you do, eventually, everything filters into you through your sense of touch, eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, or sense of taste.

Thus, we can't absolutely know anything because of the limits of our own tools, our senses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But for us to get anywhere, do anything, we need to start somewhere.
And our starting point, is our brain, and 5 senses.

~~Datruth