If you use science as a weapon against religion, explain something to me.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Llamalord135

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
There's no non-arbitrary reason whatsoever for thinking the sun will rise tomorrow? o_O
Oh okay I think I see what you are saying. Well, like I was saying about it being an approximation to reality and it being a good one. It's like this: let's assume it's a pretty good approximation because we know a lot of the variables. We know the sun fuses hydrogen and we have good ideas of how it behaves, how much it consumes, how the earth's momentum means it isn't likely to suddenly stop rotating, etc.

So in that case, there is good reason to think the sun would rise tomorrow.

Consider on the other hand that it's not as great of an approximation as we think and there is some sort of strange force we don't know about at the moment that just suddenly destroys the sun outta nowhere and catches us all by surprise, some sort of natural occurrence that happens only once ever up to this point. No sunrise then. But that would also be kind of absurd, wouldn't it? It seems that way, because science IS a good approximation and the chances that something like that would EVER happen is more realistically ZERO percent. But yet, we can't really be sure.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Llamalord135

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwong3 View Post
GUYS FFS HAVE ANY OF YOU HEARD OF THE TERM

DEGREES OF CERTAINTY?

It's not even remotely interesting. There's a chance before drinking the next cup of water, some weird event will happen that'll make you unable to process water and instead process oil. Still wana drink water and die? :| dumb MFs.
Yeah, exactly. lol


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
GUYS FFS HAVE ANY OF YOU HEARD OF THE TERM

DEGREES OF CERTAINTY?

It's not even remotely interesting. There's a chance before drinking the next cup of water, some weird event will happen that'll make you unable to process water and instead process oil. Still wana drink water and die? :| dumb MFs.
I explicitly said that I'm not talking about absolute justification. In fact, if you can show even that the probability of the sun rising is greater than the probability of it not rising, or the probability of you dying when you drink a cup of water is less than the probability otherwise, then that will suffice to counter what I'm proposing.

Quote:
Oh okay I think I see what you are saying. Well, like I was saying about it being an approximation to reality and it being a good one. It's like this: let's assume it's a pretty good approximation because we know a lot of the variables. We know the sun fuses hydrogen and we have good ideas of how it behaves, how much it consumes, how the earth's momentum means it isn't likely to suddenly stop rotating, etc.

So in that case, there is good reason to think the sun would rise tomorrow.
We have a good idea how the sun works up to now. But do we have any reason whatsoever to suppose it will continue working that way tomorrow?

Alternatively, do we have any reason whatsoever to suppose that science will continue being a good approximation?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Powerstoned

Member

12-29-2012

OP, you are mixing the belief that the human existance or perception may totally be faked/an illusion with your christianity, which teaches no such thing.

Science, and really our perception of reality is verified by evidence that can be seen/witnessed by more than one point of view/person and can be repeated for others. Even if you argue that the entire planet's population is all under the same "science illusion", and that every living creature in the universe will forever be under that illusion, then that is all we know and that is our reality. But even that wouldn't change the natural laws we know work within the illusion. If you want to play "then maybe nothing is real", then accept that fact for you religion as well.

Personally I believe in this reality. When people from opposing bias witness and confirm the exact same thing, like say you see a blue sky, and I see a blue sky, and we can ask the guy standing down the way, "hey, what color is the sky?" and he says "blue", well in my reality, that means for me the sky is blue. If I were a christian, and I only asked other christians, "How old is the planet", obviously the answer I would be getting is "6-7,000 years old" for those christians that have actually read the bible. But if I asked an atheist, a jew, a muslim and a hindu "How old is the planet", you might get 2 or 3 different answers depending on education...and well, some actual studying of all the evidence needs to be made, and we should probably scrap the old info, to get rid of any silly preconceived notions/faith/belief. And "science" will do this, because what's actually more important than already being right, is the actual truth, regardless of where it leads you.

When you are using one philosphy to debunk science, while not actually believing in that philosphy, that is called hypocracy, and makes it seem like you are grasping at straws, so don't do it. It's like an atheist using islam to debunk christianity.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Llamalord135

Senior Member

12-29-2012

I guess the logical reason to suppose it will continue working in the same fashion is knowing that it has worked that way for however long humans have been aware that there is an actual sun up there fusing hydrogen and that it has evidently been doing it for AT LEAST as long as humans have been writing about it (recorded history).

I'm not entirely sure of the strength of that argument, though.

I would say that at some point people draw a line where they are willing to just call it a day and say something will behave in a predictable way, because really you could argue ad infinitum that some sort of unknown variable exists that we just don't know about.

I mean, would you really be upset with an engineer building a bridge that had a .0000000000000001% chance of collapsing due to a super hurricane that we have never seen on earth, just because maybe there is a chance that a perfect storm could occur which allows one to form? Or would it be okay to accept that risk?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
I guess the logical reason to suppose it will continue working in the same fashion is knowing that it has worked that way for however long humans have been aware that there is an actual sun up there fusing hydrogen and that it has evidently been doing it for AT LEAST as long as humans have been writing about it (recorded history).
But how does the past give us any evidence for the future?

Quote:
I mean, would you really be upset with an engineer building a bridge that had a .0000000000000001% chance of collapsing due to a super hurricane that we have never seen on earth, just because maybe there is a chance that a perfect storm could occur which allows one to form? Or would it be okay to accept that risk?
Of course it would be okay. But I argue you can not even show that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is greater than 50%. (In fact, I'd go so far as saying that you can't show it's greater than 0%, but that requires some not-entirely-trivial mathematics).

You seem to be arguing along the lines of "The past is not perfect evidence, but it's the best evidence we have" but I'm asking why the past is evidence at all.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Llamalord135

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Hmm I dunno, I think you would have to ask someone that is actually a philosopher or something haha.

In any case, I've enjoyed the chat Kodoku but I'm gunna hit the hay. Take care


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BigNasty

Junior Member

12-29-2012

Automatically when I see someone is religious, I think of them as less intelligent. Religion is dieing friends, 1 or 2 more generations and its going to be extremely scarce. Knowledge is coming, like a freight train in the 21st century.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Powerstoned

Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
But how does the past give us any evidence for the future?

Of course it would be okay. But I argue you can not even show that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is greater than 50%. (In fact, I'd go so far as saying that you can't show it's greater than 0%, but that requires some not-entirely-trivial mathematics).

You seem to be arguing along the lines of "The past is not perfect evidence, but it's the best evidence we have" but I'm asking why the past is evidence at all.
Ok, what do you think is the probability of the universe and all of reality ceasing to exist tomorrow? 100%? 99%? Can you even show it's greater than 0%?
Whatever percentage you put towards the universe ending tomorrow, inverse that to show what percentage you actually believe is the probability that the opposite will happen (like the "sun rising" tomorrow).

If you honestly believe our reality is teetering at a 99.9% of the universe ending tomorrow, then i can see how you'd not take things like molecular decay, or a star's lifespan as any sort of past evidence that will hold through to the future. If i know what a particular element's molecular lifespan or half-life is, and i don't fantasize about the universe ending before the molecule's time is up, then me and even you will know at what rate of decay that molecule for years to come...i.e. the future.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerstoned View Post
Ok, what do you think is the probability of the universe and all of reality ceasing to exist tomorrow? 100%? 99%? Can you even show it's greater than 0%?
Whatever percentage you put towards the universe ending tomorrow, inverse that to show what percentage you actually believe is the probability that the opposite will happen (like the "sun rising" tomorrow).

If you honestly believe our reality is teetering at a 99.9% of the universe ending tomorrow, then i can see how you'd not take things like molecular decay, or a star's lifespan as any sort of past evidence that will hold through to the future. If i know what a particular element's molecular lifespan or half-life is, and i don't fantasize about the universe ending before the molecule's time is up, then me and even you will know at what rate of decay that molecule for years to come...i.e. the future.
What I think and what I can demonstrate are two very different things. I think the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is extremely close to 100%. But who said anything about the universe ending? We can know what a molecule's half-life is, but who's to say that the half-life isn't a dynamic variable that will change in the future?

The question remains - how do we infer the future from the past? There is an uncountable infinity of possible ways the future could be extended from the set of all our observations about the present and past. Our evidence alone is insufficient to narrow them down. I can see no reason for supposing any of them to be more likely than another other.