Jump to content

The Origins of Love, Life, and The Universe


TheLoneliestMonk

Recommended Posts

STU,

Because I have faith. I don't ask anyone else to share it.

I have faith in a kitchen stool that created everything. I don't ask anyone else to believe in it. Do you see how threadbare this argument is? It makes you feel good to believe in what you do. Good on you. It doesn't make it true. Human emotions do not impact physical facts, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seli,

In Brian Greene's most recent book he states that even if the few predictions surrounding String Theory (Supersymmetry and a few others) are shown false String Theory is still a viable hypothesis because of the untestable nature of idea itself. Hence my question about whether there is a real effort to disprove String theory or whether it is possible to disprove string theory given there are very few testable predictions made by its proponents.

Scott,

No idea, Brian Greene is about the level I am plugged in myself. But the way science works (or is supposed to work) means that even if testable predictions are not possible at this point people will still be looking for them, and are willing to admit answers and models are not perfect or complete in any way. For me that is an important difference with the religious models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have faith in a kitchen stool that created everything. I don't ask anyone else to believe in it. Do you see how threadbare this argument is? It makes you feel good to believe in what you do. Good on you. It doesn't make it true. Human emotions do not impact physical facts, my friend.

You're way off the point here, i believe what Scott means is, he doesn't have to explain nor convince others of his beliefe, therefore, trying to prove what he believes is unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STU,

That's because you are mistaking it for an argument. I make no representation that it is an argument. It is simply my belief. Arguments are for competing theories and after experiments have falisfied predictions, unless you are an advocate for "String/M Theory".

I know it's a non-argument, and that makes your position all the more weaker. If your belief doesn't constitute a compelling argument in any way, why do you believe in it? Why believe in something without any evidence? I don't care if you simply believe in it--you give no reason for anyone else to believe in it. As I said, "I like the idea, therefore I believe it is true" is your position. And it holds no weight in any way you analyse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's a non-argument, and that makes your position all the more weaker. If your belief doesn't constitute a compelling argument in any way, why do you believe in it? Why believe in something without any evidence? I don't care if you simply believe in it--you give no reason for anyone else to believe in it. As I said, "I like the idea, therefore I believe it is true" is your position. And it holds no weight in any way you analyse it.

Because if that was somethin based in evidence, he would not believe it, he would know it.

And he is not interessed in convincing anyone else about it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're way off the point here, i believe what Scott means is, he doesn't have to explain nor convince others of his beliefe, therefore, trying to prove what he believes is unnecessary.

But all that is saying is, "I have an imaginary friend! It doesn't matter what you say, I'll still believe in him." It just. does. not. work. when trying to determine the nature of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horza,

Way to explicitly contradict the representation i made about my beliefs and others earlier. None of the theists in this thread have argued in favor of that. Your strawman is quite dead.

STU,

I and other theists have had experiences that we believe are evidence of "God". What we cannot do is repeat those experinces. We cannot show them empirically to anyone else. Hence, I would never insist anyone believe as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all that is saying is, "I have an imaginary friend! It doesn't matter what you say, I'll still believe in him." It just. does. not. work. when trying to determine the nature of reality.

Im speaking for myself right now,

what i believe is not based in facts, nor evidence, not even reason, why? Because to try and think about such fundamental themes like is existence itself is something, i believe, is beyond reason, therefore i shouldn't try it to reach any conclusion about it, me belief in some sort of deity, a thing, not a form of life, since it existed even before life existed, is more something i feel, i believe it exists, then something i know it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horza,

Way to explicitly contradict the representation i made about my beliefs and others earlier. None of the theists in this thread have argued in favor of that. Your strawman is quite dead.

I was replying to STU, I find his TWB thesis highly plausible and wish to subscribe. Your position is fine with me, belief is not an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believing that you can determine the nature of reality seems optimistic. Presumably scientists post Newton believed that Newtonian physics helped them to understand the nature of reality and were quite confident (by and large) they were working along the right lines until Einstein postulated that some of their basic pre-conceptions were wrong.

We exist intellectually within the working hypotheses of our time but who is to say when they will be overturned by some new idea or discovery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horza,

Way to explicitly contradict the representation i made about my beliefs and others earlier. None of the theists in this thread have argued in favor of that. Your strawman is quite dead.

STU,

I and other theists have had experiences that we believe are evidence of "God". What we cannot do is repeat those experinces. We cannot show them empirically to anyone else. Hence, I would never insist anyone believe as I do.

I've had "transcendent" experiences, too, while listening music, while reading books, while drinking, but I can attribute these cognitive states to anything, whether it be God, a turkey, or a slap upon the face. But these attributions don't mean anything, because they're purely subjective. You just find it most fulfilling to attribute it to "God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doran,

Are you suggesting anyone else should follow you beliefs? Or that your beliefs should be taught in schools?

STU,

That is entirely possible. But I'm not going to suggest you should interprete your "trancendite experiences" in any particular way while you are ready and willing to poo-poo mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im speaking for myself right now,

what i believe is not based in facts, nor evidence, not even reason, why? Because to try and think about such fundamental themes like is existence itself is something, i believe, is beyond reason, therefore i shouldn't try it to reach any conclusion about it, me belief in some sort of deity, a thing, not a form of life, since it existed even before life existed, is more something i feel, i believe it exists, then something i know it exists.

You're just reaffirming my arguments. "I just want to believe in what I want to believe, because it FEELS right, and I like it and stuff."

God dammit, the world does not care about what you believe in. This world runs on physical laws. PHYSICAL LAWS, in case you didn't get that. Your conscious belief is no more significant than a leaf falling to the ground in the scope of the universe. Stop self-aggrandizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...