Scientific Faith

I did not understand too, sorry

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God can i suggest you read through Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God

They are all invalid.

They are all invalid.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God. 2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

Technically according to physics everything is in motion to a certain degree. This doesn't make the statement invalid, it is perfectly logical to assume that there can not be an infinite set of cause and effect sets(mathematicians did I use that correctly) in a finite system. If that is the case, eventually these near infinite effects will have a singular cause.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

This I believe in the light of modern thought is a weak point. As we know in our modern ideas that things we observe can come from forces seemingly independent of the actions of a being, then we must assume that there is a possibility actions exist independent of beings, although a being could still have set another action which brought that action into being....Anyway, this arguement I still think holds some validity, although its arguement is a bit weak in my opinion.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

This arguement is valid because it agrees with popular science in that everything that exists in this universe came from the greatest force this universe has known, the Big Bang.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

Ah yes the old intelligent design theory, this is in fact not invalid, because it is logical to assume that an orderly world has to have some sort of inate plan of order to set it right (in fact Cosmos in greek thought implied order, contrary to disorder or Chaos, so even the ancient greeks founders of modern science believed in intelligent design.)

If a scientist was to make the claim, scientific methods (impiricism, logic and so on....) were methods of proving something. I would quite naturally ask him to back this statement up and provide proof his believes were true not mere superstition. The scientist would brand me a postmodernist and irrationalist for not simply believing in his methodoloy without proof.

That's awesome Paul, all scientists function under faith that the scientific method is flawless and is the absolute truth in determining anything. While they disregard the fact that there could be a problem in the methodology that can mess up their data. I like that idea.

paul, could you be more shallow?

janus,

go ahead, explain fundamentals...define cause and effect while your at it.

like Hegel said, those who haven't studied an iota of philosophy or theology feel no shame in making sweeping pronouncements on lofty matters in these fields...i think Hegel called them...

=JanusRook 1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

Originally posted by Praetor Originally posted by Cezar And, btw, the scientists don't function under any kind of faith and they certainly do not think of the scientific method as being flawless. They merely use methods that are adequate to prove something. The hilarious part is when religious people are using scientific methods and try to prove the existence of their God. You appear to be addressing Scientists as if they are all of one mind, many Scientists hold religous beliefs themselves, in fact I would argue that the great majority of scientists have a faith of some description. There is no magical divide between those of religous convictions and those whose proffession is science to believe so requires a great deal of blind faith. Regards, Praetor.

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God how can something always be in a state of change?

It's called 'dialectics'.

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God if you burn a sheet of paper, it doesn't cease to exist as a paper?

It turns into ash and heat, not 'nothingness'.

so your conclusion is "there is no truth we can be certain of"?

Indeed, that is where Paul makes a mockery of the original thought that he is trying to emulate. The idea that there are truths, but its the intepretation which is difficult. We can all agree that things happen, things are and facts must be out there, its just finding them that is difficult or finding a structure to deconstruct them accurately.

However, Paul takes it too far into the realms of fantasy. There is only so far to which one can seperate from at least some truths when creating a theory or statement.

polar bears are really dinasaurs diguised as 3 foot high green goblins that wear tutus and live on the moon is a statement that can't be verified.

This statement can actually be verified. The Truth is that "Polar Bear" is a word attributed to a creature that lives around the North Pole. Because this is so, your statement is false.

Its possible that Polar Bear Like creatures are disgused as dinasaurs or even dinosaurs on the moon, but the original statement is false.

the dark side of the moon is green with pink poker dots

This one is more difficult because it is so subjective. Its difficult to even agree for instance that the moon does have a colour that could be considered a fact.

Anyhow, whatever statements you make, it is still vital to have some sort of underlying evidence. It doesn't matter what framework you have used to create a statement, its merely important to present how your subjective statement is closer to the Facts than anothers statement. That is the differents between rational and irrational, it is why the Scientist in your example is rational and you are not.