RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm by Mark 13:13.)
(January 4, 2013 at 2:14 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:(January 4, 2013 at 2:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's a good question. If you're going to do it and hope for it to have the effect you desire, you have to be very careful about what the science is actually saying, because we will be. Us thinking that you will use anything in science that you think remotely supports your position will have the opposite effect.
The problem with branches of philosophy outside of science is that they lack the one thing that distinguishes science: a way to tell when they're wrong. You can have two mutually contradicting philosophies that have no internal contradictions, so both are logically possible. If neither makes claims that can be investigated, neither can be ruled out, although we KNOW that at least one of them MUST be false, because they contradict each other and therefore can't both be true. There's a reason we like science as a method to determine whether we should provisionally accept something as true: because evidence is king in science, it can actually deliver, because it's based on checking reality.
I would recommend logic instead, because it's fun and we enjoy picking it apart, but really, you can't logic your way to God either. Like many, I used to be a Christian when I was young, and a pretty devout one. I am convinced that faith is the only justification for believing in God, and rational skeptics don't consider faith, in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence, a virtue. I think the ONLY thing a Christian can have in their arsenal that has the slightest chance of working is to show they're someone others would like to be more like. The only reasons a rational skeptic ever converts to a religion are emotional ones. I know, every time it happens, I'm wondering if they heard a killer argument or saw some evidence that flipped them, but it's always about how it makes them feel.
For what it's worth.
I agree with everything you have said , which is why I know that these Christians who display so much lack of Love for their fellow man do the Christian faith such a poor service. I also stated in another thread that the best proof of GOD or Not GOD is personal experience and subjective
and as such can't be provided as proof but that like you stated the decision is made more emotionally first and then if the person feels the need to justify then they look for proofs or logic. Its like my mum used to quote "when it comes to why people do things there are the reasons and then the real reasons. and people tend to only give the reasons." I know that my Image on this forum may not be the best but according to Chinese Astrology i'm a Water Tiger and the image is not far of the truth, the Water Tiger is a mother tiger .. got plenty of claws and teeth but still at heart a tender and caring mother . So I know at times I seem like a flurry of claws and teeth but in time I hope the other side will show more.
downbeatplumb Wrote:Firstly, I wrote about the the formation of the world and you decided to shift the conversation to the creation of the universe, quite a shift wouldn't you say.
Secondly, where did god come from? god would have to be an incredibly complex being capable of making all of creation, so how did this impossible being come to be.
You see by positing a god you just add to the questions and answer nothing
easiest thing for me to say is i'm pointing you toward the Cosmological Arguement....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
