Religion is a hypothesis.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I understand you limit what you think you know to the senses, but it is absurd to do so because ideas and mental faculties of logic and reason influence the tools of physical perception...

No need to go all caps, no need to scream...unless you can't be calm and reasonable.

Science simply would not advance without the non physical field of the mind, yet this very field which is the real cornerstone of all scientific advancements exists independent of the physical...so why would a thinking person build their house out of the straw of the 5 senses alone?
More...

but your wrong..

scientific methodology endeavors to go BEYOND (i'm not screaming, only emphasizing) the raw input of the five senses.. to codify THAT information into a coherent and reliable form.

i'm curious, which of the 'five senses" convinced you of god? sight? hearing? taste? smell? touch? :confused:
 
Quote from Lucrum:

This same question could be asked in any thread here but...


...has anyone changed their mind yet?
More...

Sure , I formerly thought atheists posting on the subject were just mistaken.

Now I know better, it's just a ruse.

They feign looking for evidence and acceptance of the scientific method but cannot even conceptualize the conditions that they themselves demand.

Their lack of candor is quite transparent as it's obvious, nothing and no conditions are ever going to be deemed "evidence" according to themselves.

I find that sort of odd, because sometimes it's helpful to at least have a frickin clue as to what you are looking for.
 
"but your wrong.."

Incorrect, of course but you're wrong on so many level...

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You're-and-Your

i'm curious, which of the 'five senses" convinced you of god?

None of the 5 outward senses, nor none of the 5 inward senses, but something you lack...common sense.

There is no harder work than denying the obvious nature of life to opt for atheistic humanistic thinking...

Quote from killthesunshine:

but your wrong..

scientific methodology endeavors to go BEYOND (i'm not screaming, only emphasizing) the raw input of the five senses.. to codify THAT information into a coherent and reliable form.

i'm curious, which of the 'five senses" convinced you of god? sight? hearing? taste? smell? touch? :confused:
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So before man heard a tree fall in the forest, the tree did not make a sound when it fell...

Classic...

...and if man did not exist, if the universe did not exist, then mathematical truths (based on logical concepts of spatial, virtual or physical relationships) also did not exist...

...in your world, X did not equal X or any other tautology as they were only valid when man validated them?

Logical truths only exist because man "created them?"

I really don't know how to respond to such ignorance as you are putting forth...

Are you a member of the flat earth society too?
More...

Well, I spoke too soon. I thought you got it but you really didn't.

Your hang up is here: "...then mathematical truths (based on logical concepts of spatial, virtual or physical relationships) ..."

That's the point were you go wrong, thinking in terms of "mathematical truths" in the same way you would think of physical "truths" as embodied by the natural laws. To speak of "mathematical truths" is rather pointless because mathematics is true by definition. The fact that some, not all by any means, of mathematics is useful in the physical world is coincidental. Mathematical concepts can, and do, encompass non-reality. You will have to get past this notion that mathematics is a discovery of man if you ever hope to understand the foundations of theoretical mathematics.

You can be forgiven for thinking the way you do, because in fact most people think that mathematics was discovered by man -- but of course it wasn't discovered, it was invented. A lot of people think mathematics is part of science, but of course that is really ridiculous. That would be like saying typewriters are part of literature.

May I suggest you try to find a copy of G.H. Hardy's little book "A Mathematician's Apology" (It may be available free on the internet as it was published many years ago.) Hardy was a Cambridge Mathematician. He will clear things up for you rather nicely.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Well, I spoke too soon. I thought you got it but you really didn't.

Your hang up is here: "...then mathematical truths (based on logical concepts of spatial, virtual or physical relationships) ..."

That's the point were you go wrong, thinking in terms of "mathematical truths" in the same way you would think of physical "truths" as embodied by the natural laws. To speak of "mathematical truths" is rather pointless because mathematics is true by definition. The fact that some, not all by any means, of mathematics is useful in the physical world is coincidental. Mathematical concepts can, and do, encompass non-reality. You will have to get past this notion that mathematics is a discovery of man if you ever hope to understand the foundations of theoretical mathematics.

You can be forgiven for thinking the way you do, because in fact most people think that mathematics was discovered by man -- but of course it wasn't discovered, it was invented. A lot of people think mathematics is part of science, but of course that is really ridiculous. That would be like saying typewriters are part of literature.
More...

Well said and, sadly, probably fruitless.
 
"The fact that some, not all by any means, of mathematics is useful in the physical world is coincidental."

So you know your "useful" mathematics is only useful in the physical world due to coincidence?

Don't mean to question your faith, just mean to illustrate the way in which people take things on faith in the same way theists take things on faith...

May I suggest you try to find a copy of G.H. Hardy's little book "A Mathematician's Apology."

Of course you may suggest it, and if at some point you understand something well enough not to refer to reading someone else and their thoughts, give it a shot...

"but of course it wasn't discovered, it was invented."

Man never invented logical or mathematical relationships, he just discovered what was already in non physical existence...

Laws of nature precede expression or manifestations of matter and energy that present themselves according to those laws...

Potentiality forever will exist prior to actuality...unless you are one who believes some magic of something from nothing at all...

Quote from piezoe:

Well, I spoke too soon. I thought you got it but you really didn't.

Your hang up is here: "...then mathematical truths (based on logical concepts of spatial, virtual or physical relationships) ..."

That's the point were you go wrong, thinking in terms of "mathematical truths" in the same way you would think of physical "truths" as embodied by the natural laws. To speak of "mathematical truths" is rather pointless because mathematics is true by definition. The fact that some, not all by any means, of mathematics is useful in the physical world is coincidental. Mathematical concepts can, and do, encompass non-reality. You will have to get past this notion that mathematics is a discovery of man if you ever hope to understand the foundations of theoretical mathematics.

You can be forgiven for thinking the way you do, because in fact most people think that mathematics was discovered by man -- but of course it wasn't discovered, it was invented. A lot of people think mathematics is part of science, but of course that is really ridiculous. That would be like saying typewriters are part of literature.

May I suggest you try to find a copy of G.H. Hardy's little book "A Mathematician's Apology" (It may be available free on the internet as it was published many years ago.) Hardy was a Cambridge Mathematician. He will clear things up for you rather nicely.
More...
 
So here we are having now proven that "evidence" in the traditional sense is at best subjective, and at worst, completely unreliable when trying to define the Universe. This was accomplished using science itself, as illustrated in my previous post. Let's pause to take note of the irony of it all.
What we're left with is the ultimate paradox. The very evidence that some use to disprove a Creator is also what's used to prove the existence of a Creator...the existence of the Universe itself.
So what are we left with to define ourselves other than the five senses? We must be willing to go outside our normal way of problem solving and be open to any and all possibilities, no matter how impossible they appear to be. Science will ultimately prove what our human intuition tells us...there is a purpose for us being here, and it is by design.
I suspect as we learn more about Dark Energy and it's effect upon all things in our Universe we will be even closer to knowing what what some believe but cannot prove. Just in case you're wondering who the "some" are...that would be all of us, whatever our point of view.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Science will ultimately prove what our human intuition tells us...there is a purpose for us being here, and it is by design.
More...
Surely science has already proven that. The purpose is to reproduce by design of natural process.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Science will ultimately prove what our human intuition tells us...there is a purpose for us being here, and it is by design.
More...
and yet every possible test that the human mind can devise to test for the supernatural fails.
science ultimately proves that many things our emotions tells us are not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top