It's only logical for your believe structure. Everyone's logic is different and requires a different set of rules.
Poll: Who believes in God?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
It's only logical for your believe structure. Everyone's logic is different and requires a different set of rules.
Sorry if this has been covered already, I've not read the whole thread yet.
But, 'faith' can be defined as a belief without proof, not based on evidence.
Therefore, it is only a belief in God that fits in to this category. Whereas atheism and agnosticism fit into the category of rational judgement and are by definition not faith.
Not necessarily. There could still be random factors involved. If we consider the first option (our universe created by random fluctuations in space/time by a singularity) then the higher level entity could be created in much the same way.
Once you get into abstract higher level universes, anything is possible. But to be an atheist is to take a step of faith that there is *nothing* higher level, even if it had to be 3-4 higher universes up, preceded by an even higher level random universe again.
We have intelligence and we developed from pure fluctuations. Why is it not possible for a higher level entity to do the same? Perhaps there are billions of universes, each managed by different entities, they themselves in their own system created using another random process. Being an atheist is to explicitly deny the possibility of *any* of that.
Logical doesn't require belief it requires evidence, and proof. The best results by the simplest most provable fashion.
Of course it requires believe, there are very few things that are proven. there for a logical stance on most things requires belief and that is person dependt. That is why what someone thinks is logical, someone else would think is loopy.
If any if the gods that people believe in now, or in the past have believed in, were to come forward and announce themselves, I'm pretty sure most atheists would change their tune.
It certainly IS NOT an untestable hypothesis.
well there aren't which is my point.
Besides in quantum theory, you can't really know the mechanism anyways, theres just probabilities it happened one way or another when you measure.
A single theory works nicely for the above. theres certainly not a million ways to get the same results. A theory deeper than quantum theory would explain it (if it exists or if we ever get there)
sid
edit - I'm not being coherent lol, doesn't matter
Very true. But proof is sometimes entirely subjective. For reference, take Flatland. The sphere is defined as an entity, however, the flatlands only see a circle that changes size as the sphere passes through the plane. There is not way in the terms of flatland to determine *what* the sphere is, only that it changes shape.
Just because either through science, or by the very nature of our universe it is not possible to rationally define something, does not mean that it does not exist - this is the very *definition* of "higher level", ie it requires more to define it. Without a third dimension, it is impossible to define a 3d object. It doesn't matter how many points you use, if they are all 2D points, it is still a 2D object. A 3d object requires *more*, and if this is not within the realm of 2D to represent, it doesn't matter whether you believe or do not believe in it, there is no way to prove/represent something in this system.
Maths has an absolute logic structure or do you disagree with its axioms as well?
What are you on, can i have some. There are billions of things that are proven. Provability is not a requirement of a person faith!
The only reason some people dont see a logical conclusion to something is that they do not posses enough evidence to prove the hypothesis, just like religious people.
yes there is for one example. evolution vs intelligent design. Both have the same beginning and the same end. Both predict the data correctly. However science is not interested in intelligent design, because it is not the simplest mechanism. Just because it's the simplest mechanism does not mean it's the correct mechanism.
That isn't actually a debate though. It's as much of a debate as saying "my computer could have been designed and manufactured by various companies, then assembled on a production line, or... MAGIC MAN DID IT"
It's nothing like the same, we know how a computer was built. we do not know how the universe came to be.
And no I don't believe in intelligent design, but it's a good example.
I was talking about intelligent design.
I apply a potential resistance V across this wire of resistance R, the current is measured at value I. V is equal to IxR. This could be their mathematical relation ship or.... you guessed it... MAGIC MAN DONE IT. That's what creationism is like.
Creationism is completely unfounded, if you believe it then you are doing it because you want to show how good your faith is, because you can ignore facts and a good solid theory, and believe in magic instead.