Does science support the existence of God?

[bitterplacebo]

Did you know the Jews were slaughtered through "logical reasoning" in the German courts?

BTW, I got a 4.0 in both my Philosophy and my Philosophy in Literature classes. I'm attempting to take this discussion to a different level.

As I have posted my subjective opinion: No, you cannot prove the existence of God through science.

Can you tell me what the German "logical reasoning" was? From the way you put it in quotes, I'm guessing it was a flawed approach, an example of what can go wrong when some part of the logic is fallacious. Was the logic that Jews were an inferior race, and so slaughtering them eliminated a negative influence on the evolution of man? This is fallacious for begging the question: are Jews inferior? Let me know if it's something else you were thinking of.

I hope you're not trying to give formal logic a bad name by associating it with the holocaust. Logic has its places, and so does common sense.

Didn't realize you were trying to take it to a different level, other than science. But I'm fine with that and agree that science won't get us far with this topic. Except I haven't read the past couple pages of posts closely, so I have some reading to do.

 

[thesinner]

They just tell you it's oameal rasin. The true magic is provided exclusively by nonbake chocolate. Extra coconut.

If it's true power you're after, then it's all about the rainbow chips deluxe.

 

[bitterplacebo]

I'm afraid I am ignorant of the actual details of the history; merely acutely aware of its consequence.

That science cannot prove God's existence is my subjective opinion because my knowledge is insufficient for it to be a professional opinion. For me, I guess, it would take a big man with a white beard opening the heavens, casting thunder and lightening, etc. Or would that be a superior life form from another planet?

I'd hope for a God with feminine characteristics. Dr. D claims God isn't a cosmic rapist, but we can never be too careful. I can't speak for everyone else, but if worse comes to worse, I don't want the big dude with the white beard...

 

[Nullifidian]

I'm afraid I am ignorant of the actual details of the history; merely acutely aware of its consequence.

That science cannot prove God's existence is my subjective opinion because my knowledge is insufficient for it to be a professional opinion. For me, I guess, it would take a big man with a white beard opening the heavens, casting thunder and lightening, etc. Or would that be a superior life form from another planet?

You've definitely hit upon a very good point there.

Science cannot prove the existance of god because no matter what one witnesses, there are always far more plausible explainations available that require fewer assumptions. Even chauking something up to aliens is more plausible scientifically than saying god did it.


I do not think that saying science cannot prove the existance of god is a subjective thing though. You can actually find out if something is proveable or not. All you have to do is see if there are conditions which would prove OR disprove your hypothesis (in this case, the existance fo god). One CAN in fact show that it is impossible through logic and science to either prove OR disprove the existance of god.

Because the existance of god can neither be proved nor disproved, there can never be any evidence which supports god's existance either beyond strange coincidences which will ultimately have a plethora of alternate explainations.

 

[peece]

What gives me greatest enjoyment in life is my time with my wife.

What my personal opinion holds as most important in life is the collective advancement of knowledge of the human race. Anything which furthers this goal, I personally and subjectively believe to be important.

As far as relationships or self promotion, those are just questions about what brings about my personal enjoyment. Perosnally I like stability. I don't like having to worry about bills and stuff. It feels good to think I'm contributing to something also. It also feels good to think I've accomplished something very difficult; i.e. to test my limits and succeed.

These are however just feelings. They have absolutely nothing to do with logical debate. We're debating here about science. We aren't debating about feelings. We aren't debating about happiness, good, bad, evil, or anything like that. We are debating about science in order to do that we only have 1 permissable tool: logic. There are only 2 "languages" in existance which are truly universal and absolute: mathematics and logic.


As far as what in life is "logically enduring" that question doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate; explain what you mean by that.

To me logic implies sound reasoning.

To me something that is enduring has qualities that last…is durable… everlasting…thus what I mean by logically enduring is that in the overall scheme/system/design if you will, what is it that make the greatest sense in our human experience


"Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless."



Bertrand Russell, atheist




To believe in God gives purpose/reason and meaning to one’s life, which is logical as a human.

Reverence for the Lord gives security to a man and his family. Proverbs

 

[Jayhawkk]

I think it's possible that science supports there being a God but we just haven't found it out yet. Hell, scientifically the Earth was flat at one point and the Sun revolved around the Earth. I know it's somewhat a barbaric argument considering those who have argued much better on this already but I think eventually it will support it.

As of now I think it doesn't.

 

[Nullifidian]

To me logic implies sound reasoning.

Yes

To me something that is enduring has qualities that last…is durable…

yes

everlasting…

Logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization

Everlasting and enduring are not the same thing. All things which are everlasting are enduring, but something doesn't have to be everlasting to be enduring.

thus what I mean by logically enduring is that in the overall scheme/system/design if you will, what is it that make the greatest sense in our human experience

No.

Logical fallacy: Fallacy of the undistributed middle

All Zs are Bs
Y is a B
Therefore, Y is a Z

In this more specific form:
all logical things are enduring
X has endured
X is logical

Just because a theory has existed for a long time, doesn't make it right or logical. Also do not fall into the trap of appeal to majority fallacy. Just because most people agree with something doesn't make it correct either. Remember, as said, people used to think the world was flat. That theory was based on faulty logic. It persisted because of the common use of appeal to majority, and also due to appeal to force arguments in the rhetorical form (disagree with us and we'll burn you at the stake, you dont' want to be burned so you better agree with us).

Do not also misinterpret Occam's Razor. First off, it is not a law, just an observation. It doesn't say "always" it says "tends to be." Second Occam's Razor says nothing of "easiest to understand." It says "simplest." Simplest means the the fewest number of major assumptions. Assuming the existance of an allpowerful being is the single greatest assumption anyone could ever make. It's a catchall. It's the ultimate argument from ignorance fallacy. Thus Occam's Razor COMPLETELY disagrees with the existance of god.

"Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless."

Bertrand Russell, atheist

To believe in God gives purpose/reason and meaning to one’s life, which is logical as a human.

Reverence for the Lord gives security to a man and his family. Proverbs

1) Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Who said what bears absolutely no weight on a logical discussion when talking about subjective things. Subjective things bear no weight in logic under any circumstances.

2) No, there is no logic in the "meaning of life." It is an EXTREMELY subjective thing.

3) Bertrand Russel was wrong. He made a generalization speaking for all people. Since the meaning of life is a personal opinion, a personal conclusion, one can only speak for oneself on the topic. I personally find the meaning of my life to be many things, but most above all is to enjoy it. There is no need for a god to find my purpose. Mind you his point was actually that there is no need for a "meaning of life" which I would personally agree with but that is a personal opinion, not an observable or proveable fact.

4) And of course more important than those issue is, Logical fallacy: non sequitor. The meaning of life has no bearing on the subject of this thread. Please keep to topic.

 

[Nullifidian]

What amazes me more is that people who had it right were imprisoned, tortured, even brutally murdered for saying so.

I will note my creative editing of your post here.

Yes, which shows the danger of using the appeal to majority and appeal to force fallacies.

Punishing someone doesn't make you right, and neither does being in the majority.

 

[bitterplacebo]

I personally find the meaning of my life to be many things, but most above all is to enjoy it. There is no need for a god to find my purpose.

This is something I think is good to keep in mind about religion. It's not a necessary requirement for living, for finding a purpose, or for having a decent life. Some find it a useful tool for reminding them about ideal behavior or giving them a model for one. It can also help for helping them through hard times, but often, to me, it almost seems like a way of putting yourself down. As if one couldn't get through life without their faith. It's alright to give ourselves credit for our achievements, and possibly unhealthy if we don't. None that have posted here seem to be at a "dangerous" extreme of this, but I just find we need to remember about balance once in a while.

Null, you picked your forum handle appropriately. I hope you continue to post replies here when necessary. No one should be persuaded into a particular belief through fallacious reasoning or inconclusive evidences. We've seen the examples of the terrible things humanity is capable of when absent of an reasonable and accurate voice.


There's more interesting suggestions I found from the reading I posted earlier. It has to do with our assumption that the universe is traveling in time from a state of high order into disorder.

This is not true if we realize there are two types of order that are always in opposition with each other. One kind is grouping order, which involves separation/division. The other kind is a symmetry order, which involves balance/unity.

Humans organize according to grouping order. We put our clothes away with the socks, underwear, shirts separate. Furthermore the socks are even paired correctly within their drawer. Over time and when there's no effort made to organize these articles we wouldn't end up with a disorder, we end up with symmetry order. All clothing would be uniformly distributed across a certain location.

The same can be said of the universe. It started at the higher order of grouping at the big-bang, without any symmetry order. With time, it's not moving to disorder, but rather grouping order is decreasing while symmetry order is increasing. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, and eventually all contents of the universe will be uniformly distributed across an infinite distance. This would be similar to the white and black squares of a checkerboard being smeared into a single gray board.

So we see we're not necessarily becoming a more disordered universe, but rather one that is heading toward the highest state of symmetry order, and a different kind of singularity than the one we began as.

I think this is a good counter to Dr. D's argument that life violates entropy/we thrive in a decaying universe. Life isn't developing in spite of the second law of thermodynamics, it's developed in balance with two types of order.

 

[Nullifidian]

Actually thermodynamic entropy isn't disorder. Thermodynamic entropy is just heat. The second law of thermodynamics in its simplest description means any given reaction won't be 100% efficient. There is always something lost to thermodynamic heat. Also as mentioned, entropy is only increased in closed systems. If you open the system to another system, you can actually decrease the entropy of one system by transferring it to the other. A good example of this is an air conditioner

This is something I think is good to keep in mind about religion. It's not a necessary requirement for living, for finding a purpose, or for having a decent life. Some find it a useful tool for reminding them about ideal behavior or giving them a model for one. It can also help for helping them through hard times, but often, to me, it almost seems like a way of putting yourself down. As if one couldn't get through life without their faith. It's alright to give ourselves credit for our achievements, and possibly unhealthy if we don't. None that have posted here seem to be at a "dangerous" extreme of this, but I just find we need to remember about balance once in a while.

Null, you picked your forum handle appropriately. I hope you continue to post replies here when necessary. No one should be persuaded into a particular belief through fallacious reasoning or inconclusive evidences. We've seen the examples of the terrible things humanity is capable of when absent of an reasonable and accurate voice.


There's more interesting suggestions I found from the reading I posted earlier. It has to do with our assumption that the universe is traveling in time from a state of high order into disorder.

This is not true if we realize there are two types of order that are always in opposition with each other. One kind is grouping order, which involves separation/division. The other kind is a symmetry order, which involves balance/unity.

Humans organize according to grouping order. We put our clothes away with the socks, underwear, shirts separate. Furthermore the socks are even paired correctly within their drawer. Over time and when there's no effort made to organize these articles we wouldn't end up with a disorder, we end up with symmetry order. All clothing would be uniformly distributed across a certain location.

The same can be said of the universe. It started at the higher order of grouping at the big-bang, without any symmetry order. With time, it's not moving to disorder, but rather grouping order is decreasing while symmetry order is increasing. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, and eventually all contents of the universe will be uniformly distributed across an infinite distance. This would be similar to the white and black squares of a checkerboard being smeared into a single gray board.

So we see we're not necessarily becoming a more disordered universe, but rather one that is heading toward the highest state of symmetry order, and a different kind of singularity than the one we began as.

I think this is a good counter to Dr. D's argument that life violates entropy/we thrive in a decaying universe. Life isn't developing in spite of the second law of thermodynamics, it's developed in balance with two types of order.

 

[Jayhawkk]

You would be no fun at a tailgate party, Null

 

[dsade]

You would be no fun at a tailgate party, Null

"Fun" is a subjective term in a human context of understanding, and has no place in a science thread.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Actually thermodynamic entropy isn't disorder. Thermodynamic entropy is just heat. The second law of thermodynamics in its simplest description means any given reaction won't be 100% efficient. There is always something lost to thermodynamic heat. Also as mentioned, entropy is only increased in closed systems. If you open the system to another system, you can actually decrease the entropy of one system by transferring it to the other. A good example of this is an air conditioner

Ok. Yeah, I think you already said something about this.

At least maybe the two orders idea is just another view to demonstrate a possible error in Dr. D's claim that the universe's natural state is toward disorder/decay. With this view, the opposite is true.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Jayhawkk:
You would be no fun at a tailgate party, Null

dsade:
"Fun" is a subjective term in a human context of understanding, and has no place in a science thread.

I doubt the conversations would be anything like this, but I'd find it hilarious if every logical fallacy got pointed out. That's a clever parody, dsade.

 

[thesinner]

Actually thermodynamic entropy isn't disorder. Thermodynamic entropy is just heat. The second law of thermodynamics in its simplest description means any given reaction won't be 100% efficient. There is always something lost to thermodynamic heat. Also as mentioned, entropy is only increased in closed systems. If you open the system to another system, you can actually decrease the entropy of one system by transferring it to the other. A good example of this is an air conditioner

Entropy is not just heat. Just because it's expressed in the same units does not mean it is the same thing. They are completely different parameters. The second law (in it's simplest and original form) is "Heat cannot move from a Hot source to a Cold source"

Of course (in theory), it actually does move from a cold source to a hot source, but by no means is it possible to heat up your coffee with a couple of ice cubes. What's actually going on with the second law can be best described (in my opinion) by thesinner's soon-to-be-famous Dodgeball Analogy:

Two teams are playing dodgeball. The first team has 6 balls, and the second has 2. Both teams suck, and don't ever get the other player out. Since team 1 has more balls than team 2, they will always be capable of throwing more balls across the way than their opposing team until both teams are eventually stuck with 4 balls.

The second law shows that it requires more energy expenditure to increase organization. The simplest example of this is the cleanliness of your room: without any effort at all, you room becomes a mess, but it takes a chore to actually clean it up. The second implies disorder on the basis that the first law of thermodynamics holds true. Since the first law of thermodymics IS true, the second law implies the natural occurence of disorder. The carnot efficiency of removing heat (aka your air conditioner example) abides by this, and that's why air conditioner's and refidgerators are so terribly inefficient.

 

[bitterplacebo]

The second law shows that it requires more energy expenditure to increase organization. The simplest example of this is the cleanliness of your room: without any effort at all, you room becomes a mess, but it takes a chore to actually clean it up. The second implies disorder on the basis that the first law of thermodynamics holds true. Since the first law of thermodymics IS true, the second law implies the natural occurence of disorder. The carnot efficiency of removing heat (aka your air conditioner example) abides by this, and that's why air conditioner's and refidgerators are so terribly inefficient.

I like to think my messy room has achieved a high state of symmetry order. But really, I'm not sure I'm satisfied with this analogy. I would beg to differ that it did take effort/energy to make a "mess" of the room. It just depends on what you define effort as and also what your view of mess/cleanliness is. As I began with, it could be that the mess is just a different type of organization pattern. I hope I didn't pull too much of a Nullifidian here, but maybe a different analogy could help me understand better.

 

[MrTotality]

If you eat another person's cookies, you steal their power. This exempts oatmeal raisin cookies, however, the high fiber content dramatically reduces the absorption of powers.

come on they are the best kind of cookie darn it

 

[B5150]

I really enjoy all the 'osophers' and 'ologists' that these sort of thread draw out of the wood work. Very thought provoking.

"And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

 

[peece]

Both teams suck,
:lol:

wait a sec, are you impling that those who believe in God suck and those who do not believe in God suck too

fri*kin dodgeball players think they know it all :cheers:

 

[dsade]

"And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

False dichotomy

Why serve any "one"?

 

[thesinner]

I like to think my messy room has achieved a high state of symmetry order. But really, I'm not sure I'm satisfied with this analogy. I would beg to differ that it did take effort/energy to make a "mess" of the room. It just depends on what you define effort as and also what your view of mess/cleanliness is. As I began with, it could be that the mess is just a different type of organization pattern. I hope I didn't pull too much of a Nullifidian here, but maybe a different analogy could help me understand better.

Well ok, Let's say you are sitting in a your favorite Lay-Z-Boy chair, sipping a cold one, watching the game. All of a sudden the you realize your can of beer is empty. Which do you think would take less effort?

1. Dropping the can off to the side.
2. Getting out of your chair. Walking to the other room and pulling out the recyclables container. Putting the can in the container. Putting the container away. And finally walking back to your chair, reclining back the seat once again to continue watching the game.

Though it does take some energy to make a "mess" (to leave things where they lie). It will take more energy to pick them up and put them away to their designated proper location.

 

[thesinner]

Both teams suck,
:lol:

wait a sec, are you impling that those who believe in God suck and those who do not believe in God suck too

fri*kin dodgeball players think they know it all :cheers:

:toofunny:

Well that wasn't my original intention, but I guess I'd have to agree. If a dodgeball player gets hit or catches a ball, that totally f*cks up the analogy.

 

[B5150]

False dichotomy

Why serve any "one"?

It's my free will. I'll do with it what I like

I believe that there is a God who is worthy of being served. I do a poor job of it at best. But it is my will and my choice. If, like many believe, there is no God, I will be no worse for wear. But if there is, well, there is going to be some hell to pay for those who "chose poorly"

 

[dsade]

It's my free will. I'll do with it what I like

I believe that there is a God who is worthy of being served. I do a poor job of it at best. But it is my will and my choice. If, like many believe, there is no God, I will be no worse for wear. But if there is, well, there is going to be some hell to pay for those who "chose poorly"

And if, perhaps, the Vikings were correct? Since there is no faculty in place to determine which, if either, is true or false other than "faith and feelings", then the crapshoot for choosing one of 1000 gods is far more risky than choosing to withhold commitment until one speck of objective evidence becomes available.

Pascal's wager has already been debunked.

 

[thesinner]

And if, perhaps, the Vikings were correct? Since there is no faculty in place to determine which, if either, is true or false other than "faith and feelings", then the crapshoot for choosing one of 1000 gods is far more risky than choosing to withhold commitment until one speck of objective evidence becomes available.

Pascal's wager has already been debunked.

So are you advocating polytheism as a safety measure?

 

[dsade]

So are you advocating polytheism as a safety measure?

Nah, one wife is plenty for me.

 

[thesinner]

Nah, one wife is plenty for me.

Just don't let her eat your Rainbow Chips Deluxe.

 

[B5150]

I ain't engaging in a debate over this. We both should know better by now. No?

 

[bitterplacebo]

Well ok, Let's say you are sitting in a your favorite Lay-Z-Boy chair, sipping a cold one, watching the game. All of a sudden the you realize your can of beer is empty. Which do you think would take less effort?

1. Dropping the can off to the side.
2. Getting out of your chair. Walking to the other room and pulling out the recyclables container. Putting the can in the container. Putting the container away. And finally walking back to your chair, reclining back the seat once again to continue watching the game.

Though it does take some energy to make a "mess" (to leave things where they lie). It will take more energy to pick them up and put them away to their designated proper location.

So is what you were saying originally that as the amount of work increases, so does the inefficiencies (entropy increase/energy dissipated to the system). I think I see how this implies more disorder, if you think of disorder as energy that was converted randomly into an unusable form. I think, though, that the term disorder is used too loosely when some talk about it in regards to creationism.

 

[dsade]

I ain't engaging in a debate over this. We both should know better by now. No?

I am sure we have both grown a lot. I let most people live their loves according to their own beliefs, as long as they don't intrude on me or mine (example: trying to force creation to be taught in school under the guise of science). Other than that, you and I have been through debates and no substance of that have changed. Brian, I have no ill will towards you at all, just being a friendly pain in your ass.

 

[thesinner]

So is what you were saying originally that as the amount of work increases, so does the inefficiencies (entropy increase/energy dissipated to the system). I think I see how this implies more disorder, if you think of disorder as energy that was converted randomly into an unusable form. I think, though, that the term disorder is used too loosely when some talk about it in regards to creationism.

Yes yes. For something to occur "spontaneously" it requires the least possible energy, and the most possible entropy.

I agree that the term disorder is somewhat of a loose term, and if you look at some of my posts earlier on in this thread, I don't really agree that the second law necessarily applies to God creating the universe. It is possible for spontaneous process to occur in perfect order and organization (i.e. you randomly throw a wadded up piece of paper wherever, and it somehow manages to land in the trash); however, (as Dr. D's argument went) the chances of that happening are VERY VERY slim.

 

[B5150]

Brian, I have no ill will towards you at all, just being a friendly pain in your ass.

I know that, without a doubt. And for sure, you are a pain in the ass.

 

[Jayhawkk]

The question was whether or not i think science proves there's a God, yes? Doesn't ask whether or not I believe in a God. Two questions with two answers. I think my previous statements may lead some to believe I do not believe in God.

 

[B5150]

The question was whether or not i think science proves there's a God, yes? Doesn't ask whether or not I believe in a God. Two questions with two answers. I think my previous statements may lead some to believe I do not believe in God.

Science has yet to prove that my mental condition exists. Spend some time getting to know me and you have all the evidence you need.

It's an analogy folks.

 

[thesinner]

Maybe God is in that good feeling we get when we do something nice for others.

I hope not: I hate that feeling.

 

[Jayhawkk]

There was an old guy going into a grocery store the other day and people just watched as he was walking on two single pole crutch things. Looks like he had polio as a kid. Anyways I get out of line to go open the door for him and get him in the door and leave the line to help him out. On the way out he told me that his dad told him as a boy to be nice to old men and women and he'll get the return some day.


Off topic but in line with what Dr. J said. I felt good for the rest of the day and all I did was open the door.


Sorry for the derail.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Be careful not to confuse what we observe in biological systems with the universe as a whole.

Can you explain more what you mean by that?

I wasn't trying so much to say anything about the behavior of biological systems, but to make a point about the origins of life. The appearance of life doesn't have to be opposed to the natural state of the universe tending towards "disorder." The existence of life may be attributed to the fact that we currently have a favorable balance between orders of grouping and symmetry, between the Alpha and Omega, respectively. We have a "just right" goldilocks situation, that will inevitably end sometime in the future. And the era that ends life, is not one of total chaos, but one of an extreme type of order--that of universal uniformity, symmetry and the consistency of absolute zeros.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Yes yes. For something to occur "spontaneously" it requires the least possible energy, and the most possible entropy.

I agree that the term disorder is somewhat of a loose term, and if you look at some of my posts earlier on in this thread, I don't really agree that the second law necessarily applies to God creating the universe. It is possible for spontaneous process to occur in perfect order and organization (i.e. you randomly throw a wadded up piece of paper wherever, and it somehow manages to land in the trash); however, (as Dr. D's argument went) the chances of that happening are VERY VERY slim.

Yeah, what might really fry your fettuccine is that at the beginning of the universe, when it was matter compressed at infinite density, the probability space containing possible future states was incredibly small. It then expanded as more possible configurations of order between matter became available, and now the number of possible future states of the universe is decreasing as we near another singularity in the future. So the chances of similar things to that which you described actually improve. Except the example will probably be more like: "you toss a piece of paper anywhere, then it, you, and the garbage can all meld together quite uniformly and occupy a space that stretches for miles."

 

[thesinner]

There was an old guy going into a grocery store the other day and people just watched as he was walking on two single pole crutch things. Looks like he had polio as a kid. Anyways I get out of line to go open the door for him and get him in the door and leave the line to help him out. On the way out he told me that his dad told him as a boy to be nice to old men and women and he'll get the return some day.


Off topic but in line with what Dr. J said. I felt good for the rest of the day and all I did was open the door.


Sorry for the derail.

Brace yourself for a giant, phylisophical rambling, courtesty of thesinner :rant: :rant: :rant:

This brings me to the great, and seldom recognized, "double standard" that comes with doing good onto others. Let me explain with a story something a friend of mine had told me.

This fella was (and still is) a real stand-up kinda guy: a real gentleman. And in day and age, they are a rarity. There also happens to be this really stuck-up sorority on campus. I'm sure there's at least one on EVERY college campus; a bunch of girls that might know a few semesters of calculus, but haven't gotten the memo that everybody poops (and everybody's poop stinks!).

So I'm eating lunch with this guy at one of the residence dining halls, and we get into talking about these high-nosed sorority *****es. That's when he says to me, "Yeah, I don't even bother to hold the door open if I see one of them walking in behind me because they never take the time or courtesy to say 'Thank You'."

That was the first time I realized it, and I said to him, "Well, what is the real reason you hold the door open for anyone?"

You see? A feeling of self accomplishment. A sign of gratitude or thanks. The self satisfaction you get from knowing that for a brief moment, you made someone's life a tiny bit less difficult. Are these the reasons we do something good? Or do we/should we do them because we know in our hearts, it is the right thing to do?

I mean, if you feel good about doing good; heck, more power to ya. But at the end of the day, should it really be necessary to have any incentive at all to do good? In my opinion, NO, we should do good because we know that it's the right thing to do. If you've made it this far, does this make any sense to you?

 

[B5150]

But at the end of the day, should it really be necessary to have any incentive at all to do good? In my opinion, NO, we should do good because we know that it's the right thing to do. If you've made it this far, does this make any sense to you?

In the temporal realm it does.

Ponder this motive:

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me."

 

[thesinner]

Yeah, what might really fry your fettuccine is that at the beginning of the universe, when it was matter compressed at infinite density, the probability space containing possible future states was incredibly small. It then expanded as more possible configurations of order between matter became available, and now the number of possible future states of the universe is decreasing as we near another singularity in the future. So the chances of similar things to that which you described actually improve. Except the example will probably be more like: "you toss a piece of paper anywhere, then it, you, and the garbage can all meld together quite uniformly and occupy a space that stretches for miles."

You're making the assumption that matter formed from one giant and greatly compressed state. In which case, this would more than likely be one GIANT (by giant, I mean chock full of subatomic particles, and not radius) atom, and therefore incredibly unstable due to Coulomb's law. Since charges are tons more powerful than gravitational pull fission would just be waiting to happen. And there you have it "the big bang" (which is what I am assuming you were alluding to).

Also, you are assuming two things: 1.) That there is a finite number of universal states. 2) That once a universal state has occured, it will not occur again.

The red shift is a sign that the universe is expanding; therefore, the number of possibilities will only increase.

 

[Nullifidian]

I'm not sure if science can prove God's existance because of one simple thing... Science covers only physical dimentions we live in, but God, Angels, Heaven, etc. exist in the spiritual dimentions where all science and physical rules become useless. Scientists try to prove the existence of those dimentions, but I'm not sure if it's ever gonna happen.
Also I believe God doesn't want to prove you anything for the sakes of proving it, but He will never turn His back on you if you ask for help or guidance and that way provide proof to YOU, based on your own experience.

That's one heck of an assumption. And how do you know these super special dimensions exist? What evidence if there to suggest such dimensions exist? What logical reason do you have to believe that if said special dimensions existed that a supreme being and all kinds of special creatures live there? If the law of physics don't apply there then what even defines existing in the first place? Heck if the laws of physics don't apply how is it even relevent at all?


Anyway, in the meantime, I've noticed a lot of folks here seem to desire not be restricted to believing dogma, but still look for something spiritual in their life.

Theravada Buddhists follow something called "Teaching through Analysis." In their religion, no one should ever believe something without proving it through logic and reason. They do listen to the wisdom of elders on subjective matters though. Even still subjective matters are never to be followed with blind faith but through one's own inner analysis and reasoning. If one cannot find sufficient evidence to support a given ethical stance, then it should not be accepted.

Did I mention Buddhists are atheists? They don't believe in a supreme being. In fact they don't believe in gods are supernatural beings at all. No heaven, no hell. 376 million of those folks out there.

Anyway, you might look into it. If you feel you need some kind of spiritual guidance to feel complete I can totally understand that, to each his own. Personally I find meditaiton and inner reflection to be very calming. Relieves stress and it's quite enjoyable. There are many tangible benefits to most people. Anyway, it can be very detrimental to one's ability to reason properly though if they cling to religious belief which conflict with logical reasoning. These people can be perfectly logical when it comes to most thing but the second something comes up that conflicts with their religious beliefs, they completely shut off their logical reasoning. It's a psychological effect called "compartmentalisation".

Anyway, just trying to help out. Giving a suggestion. I've known a lot of folks who call themselves Christians, many of them even call themselves Catholic, but they disregard many of the things in the bible because they contradict reality, or even conlict with modern civil rights. They stay with Christianity though because its the religion they were brought up with and they like having a place to go to dedicate to spiritual reflection. Many of these people would benefit from a religion where they are not forced to believe anything unquestioningly.


I appologize for getting offtopic, back on topic.

 

[Thudd]

Also, you keep repeating word "logic" way too often, would you like to explain what exactly that word means?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the incorrect conclusion with confidence.


(that's meant to be humourous, btw)

 

[Nullifidian]

I'm not gonna argue with you, Null, I'm done with it here. I already answered all these questions several times before.
Also, you keep repeating word "logic" way too often, would you like to explain what exactly that word means?

Logic. noun:
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning
2. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions

Logical. adjective:
1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic


Logic in its purest form is the science of inferrence and deduction. Along with mathematics, logic is one of the two universal truths. Logic and math are absolutes; they are inarguably, inexorably, and unerringly true. Without exception. There is no faith required in this, they are the root upon which all is derrived. Logic itself is the nature of derrivation itself. One cannot infer without logic. One cannot deduce without logic.

Now, mind you while logic is never false, human beings can incorrectly deduce, i.e. use flawed logic. This can happen any number of ways and when it happens it is called a logical fallacy. There are a number of categories of fallacies. For example, you could create a fallacy by having in incorrect initial assumption. Or you could create a fallacy by misusing inference. Or you could create a fallacy by excluding other possible outcomes of your inference. Or you could create a fallacy by using improper equivocation.

When someone argues a point logically, the only way to combat it is by finding if there are any flaws in their logic or reasoning. If they started with an incorrect assumption, violated a rule of inference, etc. If they did not violate rules of logic, i.e. if they used proper logic and started from a correct initial state of inference, then they are correct, and that argument is conceded to them. This is in fact called a logical PROOF.

Yes, in logical debate it is most definitely possible to win. It is also possible to achieve a stalemate, but this usually only occurs when there is some ambiguity in the definition of a given term that is part of the subject of the debate.

 

[DmitryWI]

Who decides which logic is flawed logic?

 

[Nullifidian]

Who decides which logic is flawed logic?

The term "flawed logic" would better be said "flawed reasoning." In the case of the term "flawed logic" the term "logic" does not mean "the science of deduction and inference", it means "reasoning." Sorry for the confusion. I should have used a more clear term.

Basically when you have a flaw in your proof, you are not following the laws of logic. i.e. you made a mistake. Since it is a mistake, someone with enough understanding of logic would be able to easily find it and point it out.

 

[thesinner]

The term "flawed logic" would better be said "flawed reasoning." In the case of the term "flawed logic" the term "logic" does not mean "the science of deduction and inference", it means "reasoning." Sorry for the confusion. I should have used a more clear term.

Basically when you have a flaw in your proof, you are not following the laws of logic. i.e. you made a mistake. Since it is a mistake, someone with enough understanding of logic would be able to easily find it and point it out.

Doesn't this contradict itself? If there's a flaw in your proof, then you didn't actually prove anything. Or is that what you were trying to get at?

 

[Nullifidian]

Doesn't this contradict itself? If there's a flaw in your proof, then you didn't actually prove anything. Or is that what you were trying to get at?

You are correct in that if there is a flaw in your proof you didn't prove anything. Thus it is not a proof if it has a flaw. It's a "flawed proof." A logical proof is a series of logical deductions and inferences leading from one state to another, the state wished to be proved from the initial state. If there is a flaw in the process, the proof is flawed and thus does not prove the end state.

 

[bitterplacebo]

Also, you are assuming two things: 1.) That there is a finite number of universal states. 2) That once a universal state has occured, it will not occur again.

The red shift is a sign that the universe is expanding; therefore, the number of possibilities will only increase.

Let me elaborate on some things and let me know if it makes sense.

First, I'll acknowledge that we know that the universe is expanding. Furthermore, it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This means it will eventually expand to infinity in a finite time. The result is a singularity, a universe in which everything is everywhere. Since the ultimate fate is a singularity, the number of possibilities must only decrease. Matter will be stretched flat and the density of space goes to zero, allowing for fewer unique patterns. The closer you get to a singularity, the fewer states there are that are singular-like.

For the assumption that there are a finite amount of universal states, we can show that the universe of possibilities is bounded by two extreme possibilities.

One extreme is called "smooth," and is where the universe expanded from the big bang in a completely uniform manner, such that gravity does not become a distinct force. We know this is not the case, there's small fluctuations in expansion rate (unknown/mysterious cause) which gravity then enhanced and eventually allowed for the formation of the matter patterns we see today.

The other extreme is called "lumpy," and is hard to grasp conceptually. But if we think of it as opposite to smooth, it would be a universe that didn't happen to have matter end up fairly uniformly distributed across space. One example could be if everything in the universe consisted of a single giant proton, and a single giant electron. Of course this doesn't seem possible from our standpoint today, but the attraction of like charges and opposition of different charges would have created a lumpy universe in which all matter was divided into two groups and remained that way. This of course, didn't happen either, and our universe fluctuates somewhere in the middle of the extremes. These boundaries and the finite amount of matter/energy in the universe would suggest a finite number of universal states.

As for universal states not occurring twice. I'm not sure I can have a good explanation right now, except that we know that time is moving forward toward the "zero" singularity that I mentioned.

And once this singularity is reached, some say time would theoretically stop because all other properties like temperature, gravity, density, etc are balanced at zero here. This does not allow for previous states to be ever reached again. I'm not sure if this is a correct view, and it's probably still open to debate. Some would say at absolute zero temperature, molecules are simply at their lowest vibrational state, they still have the properties of motion/energy, except it's not possible to lose any of this energy to the surrounding system. However, when we combine this with the other properties like density being zero...hard for me to grasp.

 

[bitterplacebo]

I mean, if you feel good about doing good; heck, more power to ya. But at the end of the day, should it really be necessary to have any incentive at all to do good? In my opinion, NO, we should do good because we know that it's the right thing to do. If you've made it this far, does this make any sense to you?

I feel this is a complicated issue. Probably because one's expectations of what is the right/good thing to do differs so greatly between people. And the problem is in communicating these expectations or making assumptions about them.

You can persistently do what you think is right and good, but if you do not receive confirmation from another source, you don't truly know if it turned out to be the right or good action to take.

With your example for instance, there could be many reasons for a person to not want a door held for them. They might see it as belittling. Whether they are good/healthy reasons are up for debate, but the fact that you violated a person's expectations by holding a door is what matters here.

The fact that they don't communicate a "thank you" could also tell you different things. They could really be thankful, and just a shy/bashful person. Or they could have not wanted to be "helped," like the example I just mentioned.

So in the absence of communicating gratefulness, we are left to make assumptions about our actions and not know the truth. Instead of make assumptions, why not be direct and ask the person what their expectations are? Ask why they didn't say "thanks," or if they minded you holding the door open. It may be blunt, but at least you might get the truth and can perform the right action in the future. My policy: the truth is always better than guessing, and usually more amusing.