Posted by Tyler Bradley on January 08, 1997 at 10:54:11:
In Reply to: Re: GOD...defined posted by Amanda on January 06, 1997 at 07:42:27:
: Well, of course I think you're an idiot for not putting a little 'faith' in science but then again - that's my opinion. By faith I mean belief in this case - science as an effective tool towards understanding and interpreting reality has by far proven to be our best thus far. Do you have any complaints about it or are you just being consisitent in your 'belief in nothing' stance?
: As for the proof against any gods - here's a bit....
: It seems fairly obvious to me that the god in man's image that has been popular through the ages is just another anthropomorphic view of things - our imaginations at work.
Now come on Amanda! You present no real proof in a scientific, logical or mathematical sense to your assertion, and I think a little reflection will help. This issue can only be reduced to *probability*, not truth. Besides, there is no "truth" in science- only likelihoods, and this is manifested nowhere else as it is in quantum theory. At that level, it is all indeterminate. That is why statistical analysis is of primary and fundamental importance in the mathematical sciences. As I've stated before, the only universal truth that appears to be accessable to humanity are those that lie at the end of a correct line of mathematical reasoning. It transcends language difficulties, cultural and personal bias, and is universally correct. 2+2=4 here and at Cygnus 4a. There is no interpretation or open-endedness in a closed, airtight mathematical proof. It is not possible to assign "truth" to a literary or poetic work; it is an interpretive endeavour, and I consider the Bible as such. But science IS subject to verification through observable consequences, and various levels of truth can and ought to be assigned to theories and thus is better situated to attain "truth" in physical settings
=== ======================
: Now that we have plausible theories to explain pretty much how things got started and led to today without needing a god
We have? How, and what are they? Science can describe and predict, but it seems inadequate to the task of answering, "Why?". Oh, well, we can DESCRIBE the evolution of living systems, but we/science cannot answer the question of, "Why is there life as opposed to none?" and the further question of, "Why is there anything as opposed to nothing at all?". These questions, and the many others like them, are beyond the scope of science. At this point then, we must use 'a priori' logical arguments to make the best plausible conclusions based absolutely on little or no evidence at all. Besides, there are other non-empirical ways of knowing; theatre, art, music, dance, theology, philosophy and its associated system of constructed thought.
=========================
- and these hypotheses and theories have evidence to back them up whereas the god hypothesis doesn't - I sway in the direction of the evidence.
I think that you have a reasonable good idea of my musings on the Christian concept of the infinite and unreachable. So, in matters where there is a need to make a choice btw. Bible and Science, you are correct. We must err on the side of observation and evidence, keeping in mind science's problems and failings (i.e. expectations clouding observations, etc.).