A Question for Religious People

[C-Nub]

I got this from a book.

Oh, and for the atheists out there, I'm one of you, don't post that there is no God. Just sit on your hands and be good for a while.

Please?

Anyways, here's the question. It might be better suited for the philosophy area, but once again, I'm an internet Jedi, and moderators will leave this thread alone.

Would you rather continue more or less as you are, believing in God and telling people that you know he exists and loves you, or would you rather know for a fact that there's a god, that mankind has been in actual, factual contact with him, but he's a giant worm that lives on mars?

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

[Beto]

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

Science can state "time began with the Big Bang" all it wants, but I don't think logic will ever allow for "time" to "begin". Things "begin" and "end" within the framework of "time", so the paradox, to me at least, is quite apparent.

EDIT:

In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

You cannot remove logic from the scientific method. It's inherent to its application.

I do not remove them. But I trust what science tells me first, and then use logic to determine its meaning. Hence logic bows to science.

You can't trust what science tells you first, because during scientific predictions you apply logical deduction. This is a no-brainer. Saying you trust one first necessarily disconnects the two, and implies logic isn't inherently part of science.

Are you sugggesting that they are one in the same?

Come on, where did I even suggest that? I'm saying you can't trust science before logic, because you don't have science without logic in the first place.

[achilles12604]

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

Science can state "time began with the Big Bang" all it wants, but I don't think logic will ever allow for "time" to "begin". Things "begin" and "end" within the framework of "time", so the paradox, to me at least, is quite apparent.

EDIT:

In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

You cannot remove logic from the scientific method. It's inherent to its application.

I do not remove them. But I trust what science tells me first, and then use logic to determine its meaning. Hence logic bows to science.

You can't trust what science tells you first, because during scientific predictions you apply logical deduction. This is a no-brainer. Saying you trust one first necessarily disconnects the two, and implies logic isn't inherently part of science.

Are you sugggesting that they are one in the same?

Come on, where did I even suggest that? I'm saying you can't trust science before logic, because you don't have science without logic in the first place.

You can have observations (scientific method) without employing logic. You can conduct experiments without using logic. Logic doesn't play in until the very end when you are trying to find meaning from the conglomeration of observations and experimental results.

Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Logic is a philosophical idea which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. It is the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

When a scientists studies something the FIRST step is to gather information. The NEXT step is to use the tool of logic to determine how all the information fits together.

He can't use logic first on nothing, and then gather information to study. Logic being a tool must be used on SOMETHING. Thus SOMETHING must exist before logic can be employed.

Hence we must have our information or Observations to use the term commonly associated with the scientific method, BEFORE we can employ logic to determine the meaning and implications of the gathered information.

[Beto]

Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Logic is a philosophical idea which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. It is the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Imagine someone gathering data or experimenting without regard for logic. Is this person doing science? Of course not. We can also define science like the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through the application of the scientific method", and you simply cannot deny that hypothesizing, predicting, and even testing, conform to logic, with the logical deductions being perhaps the most relevant form of reasoning behind the predictions. Heck, even the accumulation of data conforms to some form of logic. You don't search for data anywhere for everything because that is illogical.

[achilles12604]

Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Logic is a philosophical idea which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. It is the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Imagine someone gathering data or experimenting without regard for logic. Is this person doing science? Of course not. We can also define science like the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through the application of the scientific method", and you simply cannot deny that hypothesizing, predicting, and even testing, conform to logic, with the logical deductions being perhaps the most relevant form of reasoning behind the predictions. Heck, even the accumulation of data conforms to some form of logic. You don't search for data anywhere for everything because that is illogical.

First, I disagree that data can not be gathered without logic. What logically process was Darwin using when he simply recorded EVERYTHING he saw. He was simply recording information until he saw a pattern. No logic involved.

You can even go a step simpler and ask what logic was employed by someone who witnessed a gyser for the first time. They didn't need to use logic to see the water come out and begin wondering about what caused it.

I disagree. Logic is not necessary to collect data and in some cases, random data collection is what science is all about. If we are totally clueless about something we keep collecting totally random data until we see a pattern. THEN we employ logic.

A final example. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. How did he do this? By using a ton of random materials until . . . one finally worked. He was quoted as saying . . ."Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work. "

But in the end logic is still a TOOL. A tool is useless without something to work on. Hence the thing to work on must be first.

FIRST - Data and information

SECOND - Use the tool logic to make sense out of the data and try and find a pattern.

[Beto]

First, I disagree that data can not be gathered without logic. What logically process was Darwin using when he simply recorded EVERYTHING he saw. He was simply recording information until he saw a pattern. No logic involved.

You can even go a step simpler and ask what logic was employed by someone who witnessed a gyser for the first time. They didn't need to use logic to see the water come out and begin wondering about what caused it.

But you yourself described science with "experimentation" involved. Apparently we have a fundamental disagreement, but originally you didn't describe science in a way that allows for "curious observation" to be, by itself, scientific, or doing science. So where exactly do you stand on what "science" is? I guess the rest of your post hinges on this.

[achilles12604]

First, I disagree that data can not be gathered without logic. What logically process was Darwin using when he simply recorded EVERYTHING he saw. He was simply recording information until he saw a pattern. No logic involved.

You can even go a step simpler and ask what logic was employed by someone who witnessed a gyser for the first time. They didn't need to use logic to see the water come out and begin wondering about what caused it.

But you yourself described science with "experimentation" involved. Apparently we have a fundamental disagreement, but originally you didn't describe science in a way that allows for "curious observation" to be, by itself, scientific, or doing science. So where exactly do you stand on what "science" is? I guess the rest of your post hinges on this.

I will tie this in to our original discussion.

300 years ago we had no idea about the big bang or the universe. Then we suddenly had a few observations of strange phenomina. The red shift. Isotope dating of rocks stopping at a certain time. The background radiation.

Stumbling on these things had nothing to do with logic (well actually the radiation did so strike that one). THEN . . . . AFTER this data had been collected, we used logic to conduct experiments and reach our conclusion.

You said you must accept the universe as eternal even if it flys in the face of science.

This isn't really logic. It is preconception. Logic would be accepting what science tells us and further experimenting to discover more.

Logic must be based on something. I base my logical conclusions on what science tells us. What do you base your logical conclusion on if not preconceptions?

[Beto]

I will tie this in to our original discussion.

300 years ago we had no idea about the big bang or the universe. Then we suddenly had a few observations of strange phenomina. The red shift. Isotope dating of rocks stopping at a certain time. The background radiation.

Stumbling on these things had nothing to do with logic (well actually the radiation did so strike that one). THEN . . . . AFTER this data had been collected, we used logic to conduct experiments and reach our conclusion.

You said you must accept the universe as eternal even if it flys in the face of science.

Absolutely not. Quote me on that, or on what makes you think infers that. I only said I thought "beginning of time" was a paradoxical and illogical expression, which I commonly hear tied to the Big Bang. I never said anyone should accept anything that contradicts science. Even I don't. I love the universe because I'm dumbfounded by it, and how the science I so trust seems illogical on issues that transcend the physical universe.

I still think you should concede that science does not exist without logic, as you yourself have defined it, which is the point I was now trying to make.

[AB]

"God is Love"

You claim this, but I disagree. .

Actually I claimed it was not a baseless claim. This is distinct from claiming "God is Love".

Now, let us see you attempt to do two things.

First, show that 'God is love' is not a baseless claim.

Second, show that the claim it ISN'T a baseless claim is not itself an unsupported assertion.

First define "baseless" in the context you are asking this. Sorry, I don't trust skeptics in debate.

[Goat]

"God is Love"

You claim this, but I disagree. .

Actually I claimed it was not a baseless claim. This is distinct from claiming "God is Love".

Now, let us see you attempt to do two things.

First, show that 'God is love' is not a baseless claim.

Second, show that the claim it ISN'T a baseless claim is not itself an unsupported assertion.

First define "baseless" in the context you are asking this. Sorry, I don't trust skeptics in debate.

Well, you are the one that originally used the term. You define it. I would say that the general meaning of 'baseless' in this context would be 'without merit'.

I mean, you can redefine God all you want. However, one vague term for another
vague term does not support your claims.

[AB]

Well, you are the one that originally used the term..

Correction: ZZ was. This all started where ZZ accussed a poster of a baseless claim. I showed how ZZ was incorrect. This particular claim had a reference to a book. Therefore it was not a baseless claim.

Keep this stuff straight now.