REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   Science and religion are but under the same umbrella of faith... a crazy thought. (https://www.revscene.net/forums/682466-science-religion-but-under-same-umbrella-faith-crazy-thought.html)

Ulic Qel-Droma 04-02-2013 06:50 PM

Science and religion are but under the same umbrella of faith... a crazy thought.
 
just a crazy thought...

i frequently visit a futurist site, and of course like, 99% of the members are atheists or "non believers" of some form.

the topic of when religion will die from this planet comes up a lot. and a lot of debates happen but... these debates always end very fast because it's like 99:1 ratio to each side of the argument.

If I strip away all points people argue with, it always boils down to prove god exists... or something like extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... something rather.


then someone brought up godel's theorem https://www.google.com/search?q=godel's+theorem
which basically states
"In any sufficiently powerful logical system statements can be formulated which can neither be proved nor disproved within the system, unless possibly the system itself is inconsistent"

which basically means:
"any system which is expressive enough to be consistent and complete is also expressive enough to contain self-referential statements which doom it to incompleteness."

which basically refers to axioms:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms is a widely accepted starting point.
axioms are things you assume to be true without any proof.

how in all of science if u keep asking WHY? and stripping it down... eventually you will get to axioms. meaning, if you question any science and keep attacking it and tearing it apart till you get to the most inconsistent basic point of argument... you'll find an axiom. And in any tree of science, if you strip away the layers you will end up with these axioms.


so science... has many many layers of advancements, each layer being based off every layer before it. and these layers go on for a long time. many many layers.

but if you were to argue and keep asking why? and strip ALL the layers away, you'd be left with axioms...

SO in religion... god is the primary axiom in religion. religion is fairly simple as it does not have many layers (it's easy to see and to skip all the layers and just point fingers at the prime axiom... the belief that god exists).
but for science, you can do the same. just skip straight to the axioms that everything science is based off of...

axiom is belief in something without proof. is that not faith?

of course:
"Why are there axioms? Because we have to assume something is true. If you assume that nothing is true, you really have no ground to stand on to work out anything else."

which is logically true. but then again, you can look around you and say "look at all these things we have that are based off science!"
but that doesn't help the argument that the primary basis of science are based of axioms, which is the same as faith.

any argument into axioms usually is circular in nature. As so is pretty much all of existence, which are fractal like, circular, endless, repetitive... in and of itself.

perhaps logic is circular in nature itself. The vicious cycle manifested not in the physical world, but mentally.

Just a crazy thought...

:suspicious:

duy- 04-02-2013 07:02 PM

so science is just another form of religion? reminds me of a south park episode

Ulic Qel-Droma 04-02-2013 07:06 PM

no... i would say science is based on faith, so is religion. they're like brothers and sisters.

one calls their father god, the other calls it axioms.

my question is, ...I don't really have one. i guess it's self explanatory.



part of me thinks I'm becoming more and more like charlesincharge, but perhaps more philosophical lol. I wear a platinum foil hat (encrusted with diamonds).

GabAlmighty 04-02-2013 07:08 PM

Bacon

punkwax 04-02-2013 07:13 PM

Crazy thought indeed. Sounds more like mushrooms than bacon to me..

Sid Vicious 04-02-2013 07:20 PM

how do you empirically test religion?

Soundy 04-02-2013 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabAlmighty (Post 8202041)
Bacon

Also an axiom.

cressydrift 04-02-2013 07:23 PM

?

So, if you drop an apple, and you know about gravity, and know where gravity comes from and since an apple has weight... etc etc. Where does the 'axiom' fit in?

?uestlove 04-02-2013 07:24 PM

i want whatever deliciously fruity dank ass shit OP is smoking

PJ 04-02-2013 07:24 PM

I think most scientific assumptions are just for a point of reference so people can use that point to figure out other things.

Especially with things like units of measurements. Millimeter? Inch? Kelvin? It all seems arbitrary. But using those units, people are able to take that value and plug it into whatever else.

You can take this argument and shove it into anything, and like you said, it all boils down to an assumption.

But trying to compare religion to why water freezes at 0 degrees is a little looney..

Soundy 04-02-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious (Post 8202059)
how do you empirically test religion?

Assuming you could... at what point would you accept proof of the existence of God? I mean, if God Himself, the all-freakin'-mighty creator of the universe appeared before you and manifested an entire planet into being, complete with life forms... would you accept that being as God? Or would you merely invoke Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and still look for a way to refute His existence? "Well yeah, that's pretty impressive, buuuuuuuttt..."

This is exactly what Ulic's talking about as an axiom: if someone has decided they're not going to believe God exists, then God Himself would have a pretty hard time changing that person's mind.

So ultimately... what's the point of trying to prove that God does exist?

Ulic Qel-Droma 04-02-2013 07:31 PM

you two don't know what axiom means...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious (Post 8202059)
how do you empirically test religion?

how do you empirically test consciousness? what about unconsciousness? how do you empirically test that you know you are you and not just mimicking a program that simulates that?

There are some things that cannot be tested by observance or measurement because they simply do not exist in a way you can measure in the physical world.

(double slit experiment, schrodingers cat)... but those things don't matter because they are still based off axioms.

if i strip away any test down to the basics (math and physics... which we will be clear right now, you can do that)... then you strip it away more, you are left with axioms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cressydrift (Post 8202066)
So, if you drop an apple, and you know about gravity, and know where gravity comes from and since an apple has weight... etc etc. Where does the 'axiom' fit in?

based on the laws of motion, which are axioms (look up newton's axioms).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 8202074)
So ultimately... what's the point of trying to prove that God does exist?

I'm not trying to prove god exists. I'm trying to show that the very logic you use to attack god, can be used to attack science. they are based off the same primary thing, faith.


and let me be clear, i am not arguing from a practical or result based point of view. I know it works, and it has results. but I am arguing from a philosophical point of view. does what i say not make philosophical sense? not even philosophical... just plain sense.



and for the record, i am not smoking anything or eating any mushrooms or whatever. It's just these things interest me more than cars and pussy. ok well not pussy. but cars for sure. pussy is my god, and this god wishes you not to obey, but to penetrate.

Manic! 04-02-2013 07:42 PM


Ulic Qel-Droma 04-02-2013 07:51 PM

I think... perhaps the mere existence of "advanced" (in our subjective standards) conscious, critical thinking creates this circular pitfall. instead of showing syntax error, it just loops back to step 1, a much easier solution.

Yodamaster 04-02-2013 07:54 PM

To make it even simpler for people to understand...


People who believe in the scientific method can also believe in realities that have not been proven to exist. We figure that the universe is infinite, and yet we have no proof, but we believe in it anyway.

Faith is everywhere, and it's branded in different ways, Jesus, the big bang, it's all the same when you strip it down to it's core.

I believe that everything that could happen has, will and is happening in an infinite number of universes at the same time. I believe that an alternate me chose to drink apple juice instead of water at this very moment, I believe that there is a universe where I do not even exist. I believe that there is a universe where the year is 1776 on Earth, right now.

It's not proven in any way, but it is a theory which stems from quantum mechanics, and I have faith that it's true despite that lack of evidence. Science is based on theories which have to be proven, but it all starts with the faith that something COULD be true.

rsx 04-02-2013 07:58 PM

It's not the same, the very nature of science and reason is to constantly test and disprove theories. I don't see how axioms and faith are the same, when axioms are defined as "a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

"Faith" in the sense of religion is the most disgusting form of belief system. It's based on absolutely nothing. It perpetuates ignorance and you cannot disprove it because faith itself is disprovable. wtf.

PJ 04-02-2013 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma (Post 8202076)
I'm not trying to prove god exists. I'm trying to show that the very logic you use to attack god, can be used to attack science. they are based off the same primary thing, faith.

I'm not on either side, but...

Science is bassed off of measurements, relativity, and yes, assumptions. For the most part, these assumptions are accepted because they can be shown right in front of you.

Religion, on the other hand, is based off of stories.

You release an apple, it falls. You bring water to 100 degrees celcius, it boils. Yeah, yeah, axioms. But you're seeing the apple fall right in front of your eyes. Putting the (assumed) laws of motion against proving there's an almighty being isn't exactly a fair fight.

Although not everything can be explained scientifically, more things can, as opposed to religion. That's probably why it's so easy for people to turn away religion.

Ulic Qel-Droma 04-02-2013 08:10 PM

you guys are dismissing the first part of my argument... Godel's theorem.

logic dictates that, if the first step is not consistent, then all following steps are dismissable. it doesn't matter if you can show someone and they can see it with their eyes. the fundamentals of it is inconsistent.

like i said, somethings are not testable by physically seeing or measuring it... that we already know, so we can say that because something can be seen and measured, doesn't give it any more credit than if it can't be.

we aren't primative monkeys... we don't have to be able to see something to believe it. or just because we can see it doesn't make it true. hence illusions and delusions. magicians and schizos.

Soundy 04-02-2013 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma (Post 8202076)
I'm not trying to prove god exists. I'm trying to show that the very logic you use to attack god, can be used to attack science. they are based off the same primary thing, faith.

I totally get that... it was more a general statement stemming off Sid's question.

I agree with you fully. I get annoyed by the "science is god" types who insist on having proof for something that inherently defies proof. I get equally annoyed by the "God is all" types who simply dismiss any science that disagrees with them, but are more than happy to enjoy the benefits of science when it suits them.

The corollary to your post is something I've long maintained: that to many, science itself IS a religion. They'll never admit it, of course, but the way they praise it, cling to it, elevate it beyond reason, and even display blind faith in it... fits the very description of a religious fervor.

The irony is, true science is based on constantly questioning EVERYTHING.

Soundy 04-02-2013 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodamaster (Post 8202106)
People who believe in the scientific method can also believe in realities that have not been proven to exist. We figure that the universe is infinite, and yet we have no proof, but we believe in it anyway.

Faith is everywhere, and it's branded in different ways, Jesus, the big bang, it's all the same when you strip it down to it's core.

THIS.

If there's a possibility of realities that have not been proven to exist, then there's a possibility that one of those realities does include an Almighty Being. And there's a possibility that we're in that very reality.

And no, I'm not arguing that this is proof there is a God or anything along those lines... just pointing out that "belief" in science should not AUTOMATICALLY DISCOUNT the existence of God.

PJ 04-02-2013 08:16 PM

I'll admit I don't know exactly what Godel's theorem is, but from a quick google search, it sounds like a generalization.

Proving an object falls due to gravity and proving that God exists are completely different. Doesn't matter how you cut it. Yes, there are assumptions involved even with the former, but it can be proven countless ways (so to speak)

Soundy 04-02-2013 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma (Post 8202099)
I think... perhaps the mere existence of "advanced" (in our subjective standards) conscious, critical thinking creates this circular pitfall. instead of showing syntax error, it just loops back to step 1, a much easier solution.

10 GOTO 10

Ulic Qel-Droma 04-02-2013 08:18 PM

soundy gets where i am coming from.

everyone is is still nit picking at small branches of the tree. not looking at the base of the tree trunk itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsx (Post 8202115)
when axioms are defined as "a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

so evident? so evident to... who exactly?
the same can be said about religion... it is very evident to those who understand it.
perhaps it is you that does not understand religion?

the same argument you guys are using so far, can be thrown right back at you. it's the same arguments religious types can use.


Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ (Post 8202133)
I'll admit I don't know exactly what Godel's theorem is, but from a quick google search, it sounds like a generalization.

Proving an object falls due to gravity and proving that God exists are completely different. Doesn't matter how you cut it. Yes, there are assumptions involved even with the former, but it can be proven countless ways (so to speak)

they are still proven using axioms. you are still RELYING on axioms.
which is what i am saying.. i am not saying god exists. i am saying the basis of both logic is the same. you are relying on faith. so you cannot be so quick to attack one without attack the other with equal force.

godel's theorem is the main reason this was brought up.

"Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory"

something rather. my first original post explains it better.

duy- 04-02-2013 08:23 PM

assuming that we would argue for science or religion... or are you referring to those conversations where its "99:1" on either side? because personally i dont seek to disprove religion through science or vice versa

Soundy 04-02-2013 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ (Post 8202133)
I'll admit I don't know exactly what Godel's theorem is, but from a quick google search, it sounds like a generalization.

Ulic addressed it in the first post of this thread. Googling not required.

Quote:

Proving an object falls due to gravity and proving that God exists are completely different. Doesn't matter how you cut it. Yes, there are assumptions involved even with the former, but it can be proven countless ways (so to speak)
It can be DEMONSTRATED countless ways. The whole point of Ulic's "axioms in science" is that nothing can be ultimately 100% proven.

Before Newton et al., there were other ideas as to why objects fell toward the earth. Those could be demonstrated as well; people considered those "proven", even though there was problems applying them in all circumstances. Then ideas arose around "gravity", and they did a FAR BETTER job of addressing those problems, and could be much more reliably demonstrated. Theories around gravity are tested regularly and hold up pretty well... but there are still things that don't quite fit. Does that mean gravitational theory is wrong? Or incomplete? Or that there's something else at play? We haven't figured that out yet. For now, it's a theory, a "natural law", that works well enough... but, someone could make a discovery tomorrow that shows everything we think we know about gravity is completely wrong.

And by that same token, someone could make a discovery tomorrow that shows the very real possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being of some kind.

Or maybe not. But just because there isn't evidence or "proof" *right now*, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net