Science has so many points against God ...

Originally posted by telerion
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]I've said it before but i'm afraid a discussion with you will be rather fruitless.

Yes. I have begun to see as much myself. I would like to say that in my opinion it is because you do not ...[text shortened]... other god in history, then you won't talk to me? Fair enough. [/b]

Your style is rather accusatory, Telerion. If I would react to all of your accusations we would indeed land on a path that will only exist of me reacting to your accusations. You would undoubtedly find more unsound reasoning in my reactions and you would undoubtedly again address those vices of mine. It would lead to a never ending melody of you accusing me of all kinds of fallacies without trying to understand what's it all about, without trying to understand what I am trying to say. It would lead to a discussion that has less to do with the relation between Science and Faith, but rather more with the way you review my ways of reasoning without showing some necessary benevolence. Trying to understand instead of trying to score points, that is in my opinion a necessary condition to have a fruitfull and benevolent debate.

Originally posted by Omnislash
I'd say ask a chaotician. They can very clearly explain why the odds are astronomically in favor of God.

In mathematics, this is referred to as Nonlinear Dynamics. So they would be mathematicians, not chaoticians. I think you would find that there would be theistic ones and atheistic ones (I know at least one.). And one thing I am quite sure of, any assertion about a deity that is rigorously based in nonlinear dynamics would be anything but clear. 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
I'd say ask a chaotician. They can very clearly explain why the odds are astronomically in favor of God.

What are you trying to say ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Your style is rather accusatory, Telerion. If I would react to all of your accusations we would indeed land on a path that will only exist of me reacting to your accusations. You would undoubtedly find more unsound reasoning in my reactions and you would undoubtedly again address those vices of mine. It would lead to an never ending melody of you accusing ...[text shortened]... points, that is in my opinion a necessary condition to have a fruitfull and benevolent debate.

I sympathize with this. I do not mean to be accusatory if you are using that to mean an attack on you personally. I saw some major flaws in how you portrayed secular people, and as a secular person took the responsibility to address that. After clearing that up, I gave you my take on faith and science.

You then critiqued my response and that is how we have ended up in the place we are now.

Originally posted by Omnislash
I'd say ask a chaotician. They can very clearly explain why the odds are astronomically in favor of God.

A chaotician being clear???? Isn't that a contradiction??? 😉

Originally posted by NicolaiS
A chaotician being clear???? Isn't that a contradiction??? 😉

He he, not in my opinion, but that's just crazy me. 😀

Originally posted by telerion
In mathematics, this is referred to as Nonlinear Dynamics. So they would be mathematicians, not chaoticians. I think you would find that there would be theistic ones and atheistic ones (I know at least one.). And one thing I am quite sure of, any assertion about a deity that is rigorously based in nonlinear dynamics would be anything but clear. 🙂

The assertion is based upon chaos theory. The principle, while based in chaos theory, can most certainly be expressed mathmatically. It certainly is clear, but then again, the purpose of my post was to instigate people to actually seek out the work that has been done on this, which I have yet to see anyone do. If anyone's not going to learn about this, then please just ignore my comment as it will hold absolutely no relevance to you or this discussion. If anyone would care to check it out, we can talk.

I do apologize if my earlier post "confused" some people, but I really have neither the time nor inclination to explain in depth chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics relevance and relationship to reality. I recommend checking out the theorums as I found them interesting, that is all.

Best Regards,
Omnislash 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
The assertion is based upon chaos theory. The principle, while based in chaos theory, can most certainly be expressed mathmatically. It certainly is clear, but then again, the purpose of my post was to instigate people to actually seek out the work that has been done on this, which I have yet to see anyone do. If anyone's not going to learn about this, th ...[text shortened]... eorums as I found them interesting, that is all.

Best Regards,
Omnislash 🙂

Where would you suggest we look to find these arguments you mention? I've done some cursory searches using terms like "Chaos Theory", "Chaos", "Complexity", etc., and I haven't found anything like what you mention. I've found some arguments about free will, some arguments about determinability, but nothing relating to God's existence being highly probable.

Originally posted by bbarr
Where would you suggest we look to find these arguments you mention? I've done some cursory searches using terms like "Chaos Theory", "Chaos", "Complexity", etc., and I haven't found anything like what you mention. I've found some ...[text shortened]... y, but nothing relating to God's existence being highly probable.

Search again. You never know how your last search
may have sent a rippling effect through the internet,
causing unexpected changes in the contents of the sites
you visited. Maybe you'll find something there this time.

Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by Cribs
Search again. You never know how your last search
may have sent a rippling effect through the internet,
causing unexpected changes in the contents of the sites
you visited. Maybe you'll find something there this time.

Dr. Cribs

Yes, or maybe the argument just now appeared, fully formed, like Athena. Or, perhaps the argument's cogency and location are Heisenbergian complements such that the observation of one precludes the possibility of observing the other. Thus, when I find the argument to which Omnislash refers, it will be mere nonsense. Perhaps it only makes sense as long as it is unfound. What a pickle!

Originally posted by Omnislash
The assertion is based upon chaos theory. The principle, while based in chaos theory, can most certainly be expressed mathmatically. It certainly is clear, but then again, the purpose of my post was to instigate people to actually seek out the work that has been done on this, which I have yet to see anyone do. If anyone's not going to learn about this, th ...[text shortened]... eorums as I found them interesting, that is all.

Best Regards,
Omnislash 🙂

That is cool Omni. I just don't see where a clear argument for any specific deity comes from "chaos theory." When some one says "chaos theory," I understand that as a reference to what mathematicians and other scientists call the study of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems. That is a system of usually three or more equations that behave with exteme sensitivity to initial conditions.

When drawing diagrams of the behavior of these systems they appear to behave randomly hence the term "chaos." While most of these systems, especially those with a larger number of equations, are still intractable, mathematicians are making some progress. For instance, when they apply high-speed computers to the process of mapping the behavior of these systems, sometimes an amazing thing happens. Order begins to appear out of the seeming disorder.

This last bit is the only part of NLD, I can think of that some one would claim supports the existence of their deity. Another form of Intelligent Design. I think such an argument falls prey to all the usual ID rebuttals.

Nonlinear Dynamics is often referred to as "chaos theory." In this sense it is just a cooler way to describe it to people. Maybe your talking about something different? Is there another "chaos theory" that you are talking about? Maybe I'm just totally off?

For anyone that doesn't have a background in mathematics. James Gleick's book Chaos is a great read. I bet a lot of you have already read it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Or, perhaps the argument's cogency and location are Heisenbergian complements such that the observation of one precludes the possibility of observing the other.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the case.
I have suspected for quite some time that this phenomenom
was developing in the Internet. Our debate fourms here
are particulary fertile ground for this, it seems. For if
we go on the assumption that people wouldn't voluntarily
post nonsensical arguments, then Heisenberg uncertainty
between posts' cogency and browser display could explain
a lot of the nonsense that we observe here daily.

I will have to remember this excuse the next time my
logical fallacies are exposed.

Dr. Cribs

Originally posted by telerion
....

faith: a way to claim knowledge that cannot be supported by reason.
or as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know isn't so."

xtian faith: just another faith-based myth derived from Hebrew mythology.

...

Part of the problem you are having with faith and reason is caused by your assertion that faith begins where reason ends.

My definition of faith, is simply understand and assenting to some set of propositions. So by my understanding of faith, reasoning follows from faith.

Everyone has faith in some fundamental proposition(s) if they are honest. You can not have any consistent or non-contradicting systematic world view without having some axiomatic beliefs to base them on. In other words, every system starts with some point of FAITH.

If you believe that science provides you with a reasonable system, then you have a wobbly foundation. Science proves nothing, and reasoning by science is inductive instead of deductive. Science only provides you with theories for understand the sensible world, based on accumulated data. But it does not answer questions about purpose or ethics.

One most also establish a reasonable theory of knowledge. What are your epistemological tenets? How do you know anything? Can you derive knowledge from your sensory data?

I assert that no one knows a tree. What is known, is a proposition about the tree. You may know that the tree is and oak. And you don't know biology, you know a series of propositions about biology. So knowledge is propositional. You can not sense a proposition. And how can you derive a proposition based on sensory information? Can you deduce a ethics from smell and taste?

Originally posted by Coletti
Part of the problem you are having with faith and reason is caused by your assertion that faith begins where reason ends.

My definition of faith, is simply understand and assenting to some set of propositions. So by my understanding o ...[text shortened]... sensory information? Can you deduce a ethics from smell and taste?

Did somebody mention "epistemology"? Yeah! Philosophy that isn't ethics, how exciting!

Hey Coletti, a few points:

First, if your definition of faith is merely "understanding and assenting to some set of propositions", then how does faith differ from belief? Normally, we distinguish between believing a proposition and having faith that a proposition is true. While it seems that having faith that P entails that believing that P, it doesn't seem that believing that P entails having faith that P. So, what special properties does the state of having faith have in virtue of which it is different than mere belief?

Second, when you claim that everyone must have faith in some fundamental proposition, do you mean that everybody accepts some proposition or set of propositions for which they can offer no epistemic justification? Is this what you mean when you claim that these fundamental propositions are axiomatic?

Third, not all knowledge is propositional. Not only does there exist knowledge of propositions (knowing that P), there are also capabilities of various sorts that are perspicuously described as 'knowing how'. We may know how to ride a bike, swim, etc., without having the ability to express or even mentally represent the propositional content that would be contained in a complete description of bike-riding or swimming.

Originally posted by bbarr
Did somebody mention "epistemology"? Yeah! Philosophy that isn't ethics, how exciting!

Hey Coletti, a few points:...

Good questions!

First, if your definition of faith is merely "understanding and assenting to some set of propositions", then how does faith differ from belief? Normally, we distinguish between believing a proposition and having faith that a proposition is true. While it seems that having faith that P entails that believing that P, it doesn't seem that believing that P entails having faith that P. So, what special properties does the state of having faith have in virtue of which it is different than mere belief?

None. Faith and belief are synonymous. That is how it is used in the Bible, that is what I think is the best way to understand it. I don't expect everyone to agree with that, but there is no reason to differentiate the two from scripture.

Second, when you claim that everyone must have faith in some fundamental proposition, do you mean that everybody accepts some proposition or set of propositions for which they can offer no epistemic justification? Is this what you mean when you claim that these fundamental propositions are axiomatic?

I mean that everyone holds to some propositions that are not deduciblefrom other propositions, but are believed true.

Third, not all knowledge is propositional. Not only does there exist knowledge of propositions (knowing that P), there are also capabilities of various sorts that are perspicuously described as 'knowing how'. We may know how to ride a bike, swim, etc., without having the ability to express or even mentally represent the propositional content that would be contained in a complete description of bike-riding or swimming.

I think you are talking apples and hammers here. I know that there are other things that people call knowledge, different definitions for the word, but by definition, they are not the same thing. For instance, a dictionary might say that knowledge is accumulated facts or data. You mention 'know how'. But know how is a function of physical conditioning or training of how to do things, but that is not the same thing as the knowledge that is extended by propositions - knowing something about what something is. I am talking specifically about knowledge that is deduced using logic.