Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[Only-virgins]

To which religious fanatics will answer, "And it's only a matter of time before we fill them with truth on judgment day."

~Sphinx

That question "what god?" is older than "how do you make a fire?"...at least we answered old questions such as that. This judgment day is coming...I believe the release date of it is never so don't hold your breath.

OV, do you not understand that you said "there are no holes" followed immediately by "any holes that exist"? The second portion you wrote concedes that there ARE holes that are as yet unsolved.

Can't you think outside the box for at least a second? Here, look at it this way. There is no such thing as a memory, but we have memories. Does that make more sense? because it does. When you die...the memories you had never actually existed in the first place. Its philosophical, not scientific. It is the same here, I mean that if we find the answer to the hole, the hole never existed. How old is the "prove god" hole? It is deep as anything by now and I guarantee you they will never find the answer to it. Like I said, Science actually progresses.

[IndiReloaded]

OV, just for clarity, where are you on this scale:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I normally wouldn't say, except I think it won't bias you. I sit at a solid #6. Number 7 has exactly the same problems as does #1, IMO.

[IndiReloaded]

When you die...the memories you had never actually existed in the first place. Its philosophical, not scientific. It is the same here, I mean that if we find the answer to the hole, the hole never existed. How old is the "prove god" hole? It is deep as anything by now and I guarantee you they will never find the answer to it.

Yes. I've think those interested in the concept of 'God' should ask themselves whether they are even asking the right question. As you say, there are some problems (paradoxes) that are simply 'wrong' questions without any true answer. Philosophy deals with these types of issues (and doesn't claim it as science).

Do you know about 'memes', OV? Read up on them if not.

[TheSphinx]

I was originally trying to say that neither religion nor science are "complete." You state that "it is only a matter of time before we fill them with truth when we find it."

Do the religious not come from a similar position? The phrase sounds exactly like prophecy to me.

You also state that, "...as long as there is no fault in the person's logic and reasoning who is interpreting the data than science is flawless."

Who determines what constitutes a fault in a person's logic or reasoning? What standards do we have for this, and if they are established, how do we know the original creator is not biased in some way?

How is science "flawless" if it "never claims anything for 100% fact when any form of doubt exists."? How can doubt exist in a flawless system? How can science disprove a higher being (as a 100% fact) if it follows the above rule?

Science is great...

...but it's still got holes.

~Sphinx

[anachronistic]

I'd be a 5 on that chart, I guess... even though you didn't ask me. I think that Sphinx makes a good point. I personally have fallen from the Christian versus Atheist thing. Christians are pointing up, Atheists are pointing down, and I am plummeting to the left.

[IndiReloaded]

Everyone who wants to should post. I just didn't want to offend anyone by asking outright. I knew OV wouldn't care, is all.

[IndiReloaded]

I was originally trying to say that neither religion nor science are "complete." You state that "it is only a matter of time before we fill them with truth when we find it."

Do the religious not come from a similar position? The phrase sounds exactly like prophecy to me.

Not at all. Science allows the ability to test hypotheses, and discards theories when new data comes to light. In that, it is completely rational and nothing like prophecy. Science never claims to have 'all the answers' as does religion. It just claims a method that, when followed rigorously, will yield answers that are reliable, testable, and rational. And if a theory is ever challenged with new data that makes it unreliable, untestable, irrational--it is immediately discarded.

I think OV just misused some words that led to some confusion.

[IndiReloaded]

On Science:

"We know what we know & we know what we don't know. And we know what it would take to change our mind between those two states."

[anachronistic]

Not at all. Science allows the ability to test hypotheses, and discards theories when new data comes to light. In that, it is completely rational and nothing like prophecy. Science never claims to have 'all the answers' as does religion. It just claims a method that, when followed rigorously, will yield answers that are reliable, testable, and rational. And if a theory is ever challenged with new data that makes it unreliable, untestable, irrational--it is immediately discarded.

I think OV just misused some words that led to some confusion.

I think this may be the misunderstanding, too.

I think Sphinx is referring towards OV's "OH YES THEY WILL DISPROVE RELIGION, IT'S ONLY A SHORT MATTER OF TIME" type attitude. I mean, nobody can really say that, right? That's predicting the future.

edited... wouldn't want to offend anyone with that comment.

I think at this day in age, religion has a different meaning. I use the word in such a sense to describe the way a person understands things in contrast to the way they are. I mean, that's really all it is. The word is all too often used in place of Christianity, here in America, and that's what I fear for this country's language issues.

[TheSphinx]

And if a theory is ever challenged with new data that makes it unreliable, untestable, irrational--it is immediately discarded.

What I'm trying to get at, Indi, is that one could live under a false scientific theory for the duration of one's life and not know any better. So too with a religion.

~Sphinx

[IndiReloaded]

Well, I can only speak for my particular issues with religion and the main one is this:

Religions actively encourages the lack of rational thought. A story is written in a 'holy book' and taught to be taken as 'true' based on belief, not evidence. In fact, when evidence is supplied that contradicts the book, it is the evidence that is discarded. In science, if evidence causes a book to be proven wrong, the book is discarded.

Religions have gone so far as to suggest that anyone who might provide proof against their chosen belief is basically 'the devil' or some equivalent, therefore 'good (insert religion of choice) x's' must NEVER even think about examining that evidence on peril of (insert religious penalty of choice). Its a beautiful self-reinforcing downspiral of belief triumphing over reason, if it weren't so freaking scary that so many have bought into it.

[IndiReloaded]

What I'm trying to get at, Indi, is that one could live under a false scientific theory for the duration of one's life and not know any better. So too with a religion.

Sure, but the rational mind knows that & would be prepared to immediately change ones beliefs should new evidence arise.

There's a great story about a scientist who taught for years that a component of a cell just didn't exist (that it was a microscope artifact). Based on the current evidence, it was his best guess & he taught it thus. When, years later, a young scientist gave a talk presenting irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the old scientist immediately thanked the young researcher and immediately changed his views & teaching.

This doesn't happen in religion. Despite HUGE amounts of data to the contrary, there are still ppl out there who actually believe the earth is just 10000 years old. Not because they don't understand the scientific data, but because they 'believe' it must be so (it says so in their holy book). Strangely enough, they have no problem accepting the results of an x-ray, which is based on the same fundamentals of physics.

[TheSphinx]

Despite HUGE amounts of data to the contrary, there are still ppl out there who actually believe the earth is just 10000 years old.

Yet you can still find data to support the opposing view. I won't argue that there is enough data to make a religion concrete, however.

~Sphinx

[anachronistic]

Religions have gone so far as to suggest that anyone who might provide proof against their chosen belief is basically 'the devil'

Like foozball in the Waterboy?

Where's the evidence that gives these claims? Just curious. I've never heard such a thing in my experience with religion. I've read stories, never heard of though.

Hasn't Atheism gone just as far in claiming that anyone that gives even slightest thought that there might be a higher being is insane?

It's irrational to reject reality; it is also irrational to reject possibility.

[IndiReloaded]

Yet you can still find data to support the opposing view. I won't argue that there is enough data to make a religion concrete, however.

~Sphinx

That says nothing about the quality of that data tho. I know of no data that hasn't been debunked (or at least labelled 'not proven') that says that the earth is a mere 10000 years old. And poking 'holes' in a scientific theory (e.g. the fossil record) doesn't count. Point is, there is lots of supporting evidence, from several independent fields (!) that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. There's no good data I know about that says its only a mere 10K, there is only some smelly old book written by humans (who we know are infallible and without ulterior motives) that says so and that doesn't constitute proof, no matter how loudly it is proclaimed as such.

10,000 Elvis fans CAN be wrong, lol.