Are there any religions based on logic?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Dead_pool, Aug 1, 2015.

  1. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Stop with this nonsense, please. Whoever said they had a "God". This is a poor debate tactic, a simple straw man. I get better debate from freshman. The moment you associate my posts with a "god of the ___" then you can shoot me down as a science denier or some silly thing. Please don't do that, I take history and science and philosophy very seriously. I have a sense of humor but the "dorm room" environment here obviously gets to me sometimes. I guess I am turning into a grumpy old fart but I just ask that we stop making assumptions about each others knowledge. I don't think of you folks as ignorant or uneducated..even if you use shameless and crude debate tricks.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  2. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    iron fist - could you make specifically clear your point of view in this thread?

    I think the issue many (including myself) are having with understanding you is that you've not expressly made your point clear in one simple sentence so we dont know exactly what you're arguing.
     
  3. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool the merc with the mouth MAP 2017 Moi Award

    "Mod is the word for God, on the minds and lips of all those brave adventures of debate on map." The crow.

    Heard and understand.
     
  4. 8limbs38112

    8limbs38112 Valued Member

    Fusen I am just curious of what you believe, if you know what you believe at all. You obviously don't believe there is a God. So what are your beliefs about how the world came into existence. I know absolutely nothing about science and don't care enough to research science, but I am curious do you believe in the big bang theory. I am just curious because the big bang theory is just that a theory, and it requires faith to believe in that, the same way it requires faith when people beleive in certain religions. NOt trying to get into a debate I'm just curious.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  5. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    fusen can answer for himself.

    my problem with your post is that you don't understand science. a "theory" in scientific parlance means a substantiated explanation. in other words, observable evidence is needed, not hunches or guesses or (gasp!) faith. it's also not enough that an explanation seems to fit the data, the theory must also be testable, make predictions and be falsifiable.
     
  6. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    (Warning Giovanni, sarcasm doesn't help get your point across the people who admit they have little understanding of science. i have tried sarcasm in explanations with friends but me causing them embarrassment usually causes them to cover their ears and ignore anything i say)

    To say this in a less sarcastic way:
    A theory in scientific terms is not the same as a theory in laymans terms.

    Layman theory:
    An assortment of ideas on a mechanism, that have no evidence or testing behind it. (This equates to a hypothesis in science)

    Scientific theory:
    A studied mechanism that has a large body of evidence in support of a clear and well defined hypothesis that can be tested and repeatedly to produce similar or the same results with a good restestability rate.

    Why people believe that the big bang is the beginning of our universe is because it has an incredible body of evidence from a number of tested hypotheses that currently

    Science is very fluid (especially more so in recent years) in that if evidence is found against a theory X and in favour of another, theory Z, with more evidence then the scientific community will shift their thinking and re-evaluate all their evidence.

    The only faith that is placed is that millions of scientists, lab techs, university professors, college students and high school teachers aren't lying about what they've studied and tested first hand.

    I have been through the university studying biology, testing DNA, looking at species diverging and modifying bacteria to glow and adapt - I'm quite sure im not part of a global conspiracy and therefore think evolution and abiogenesis has the highest quantity and quality of evidence for the origin of life.

    As for the big bang, i did not take even fundamental physics in school but i trust that the sheer number of people evaluating/testing these theories probably makes it a better bet than believing that Brahma willed the universe into existence with his mind.
     
  7. 8limbs38112

    8limbs38112 Valued Member

    So your saying that one doesn't need any faith to believe in the Big Bang theory?

    The reason I'm asking is because even if their is observable evidence and testing that supports the Big Bang Theory, unless that evidence proves that the Big Bang is true beyond the shadow of a doubt, then it still requires some faith in order to believe in it. The only things that don't require faith is a fact.

    For example if I accuse my brother of stealing from me based on evidence that supports that belief. (maybe he is on drugs, he is a bad person, very few people were there and he's the only one that steals) then that requires faith. But if I video recorded him in my room stealing and saw it with my own eyes then it becomes a fact.

    Maybe there is evidence that supports the big bang theory. But it is not a fact until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. So even with all the evidence it still requires faith even if its just a little.

    I beleive that Jesus died on the Cross and was ressurected on the third day and there is evidence that supports my belief. I cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I still have faith, because I believe the evidence points to it. But it still requires faith on my part, because I wasn't there. They did not have video cameras back then to record it. We don't have time machines to go back in time to see if its true. Because of these reasons it requires faith in order for me to believe in it. But that's what I place my faith in. That's what I believe.

    If you believe in the BIg Bang theory more power to you. You can believe what you want. But until it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt it still requires faith to beleive in it. Otherwise it would be considered a fact.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  8. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I think one of the issues with requesting concrete proof of things as big as the big bang is you need to be able to understand the proof. Lord knows I can't.
     
  9. 8limbs38112

    8limbs38112 Valued Member

    I probably couldn't either. Im pretty dang ignorant. Especially in comparison to the many scholarly posters on this forum. While guys like them went to science class I was throwing paper balls at them skipping class in the hallway. lol.
     
  10. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    Please see my above post.

    Facts aren't entirely factual.
    for example dropping a porcelain ming vase from the 30th floor of a building to the ground will result in a broken vase - FACT

    But in reality there will be the chance that it doesnt - let me explain

    In math there's a thing called distribution and probability - both these things can never reach a full value (1 or 0). as such the probability of a vase shattering when dropping it can never be 1 (aka 100% vase breakage). if you were to drop infinite vases all identical, there is the probability (insanely tiny) that a vase would not shatter. but we consider vases shattering to be a fact.

    Therefore anything considered FACT is just the laymans way of saying that there is a high probability something occurred.
    The word FACT actually means similar thing as the scientific meaning of THEORY.

    The difference is that scientific communities acknowledges that mathematically nothing, not even the probability of ever dying, can ever be 100% where as the layman fact has no understanding of math and probability.
     
  11. Count Duckula

    Count Duckula Valued Member

    Fusen already provided you with an answer.

    Relativity predicts that due to their speed and distance from the earth, time passes at a different rate than for us here on the earth's surface. It's not much. But it is enough that it has to be accounted for to calculate time and position differences between GPS sattelites. These differences have been observed and corrected for, which is why we can get to immense precision using GPS.
     
  12. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    My sources for what I've written here, for what it is worth to the people who bother reading it :)

    Birkhoff, G.; von Neumann, J. (1936). "The Logic of Quantum Mechanics". Annals of Mathematics (Annals of Mathematics) 37 (4): 823–843. doi:10.2307/1968621. JSTOR 1968621.
    A source for the assertion that logic is not the underpinning of the "Universe", it is a language humans invented to do our best in understanding it, and what seems classically logical must often be abandoned at the extremes of science. Logic in fact must change to accept the "illogical", because even the most infinitesimally probabilistic events, due to quantum effects, can be. A Pink Elephant, might, in fact, fly out of my butt. :)

    Priest, Graham (2008). "Dialetheism". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    This one discusses how logic, if it's to be of any real use in understanding reality, must accept the illogical, irrational, unreasonable. The reason being that logic is undeniably context-specific, that dialetheism is the true nature of reality, leaving plenty of room for both logic and non-logic in the Universe. Logic basically must always accept "other possibilities", no matter how true (in a boolean sense) a logical order may seem....or it becomes illogical itself and all hell breaks loose, paradoxically speaking.

    Dialetheism, the acceptance of "appears true" or "appears false" while simultaneously accepting the possible validity of their negations (as opposed to the Discrete binary values, 0, 1, on, off which are very primitive way of viewing the universe after all!) according to many in that field, to be a better approximation of both human reasoning, and the structure physical reality.

    Put simply, reality may actually be = Logic + "Anti-logic". And the marriage of classical and quantum mechanics and our present understanding of the universe aligns with that paradigm, isn't it kind of obvious? It makes sense to me...it's very Tao in fact, now that I think of it :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  13. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    Brian cox actually did an explanation (and explanation of a test) for this for the BBC if i remember right.
     
  14. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    faith is not required, nor is any kind of belief.

    only faith declares something true beyond a shadow of a doubt. right now the big bang seems to be the most supported cosmological model, based on the observable, testable evidence. will something come around that explains reality better in the future? almost certainly, yes, there will be, as we continue exploring not only our universe at large, but atoms at the quantum level.

    you're conflating two wildly different things. it's a typical creationist trick, frankly. no, you busting your brother has nothing to do with the model that explains the biggest things we've ever observed (planetary objects and the universe at large).

    nope, no faith required. i can actually, if i had the equipment, verify everything. that's the point of science; in many ways, observation is the most critical aspect.

    you can surely believe whatever you want. but there is no evidence to support your belief. period. none.

    again, belief is not required. in science, it's all about the evidence, testable, falsifiable, predictive evidence. i don't believe in anything, because i do not have faith. actually, i'm pretty pessimistic in general towards human beings and our mental capacities.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  15. Count Duckula

    Count Duckula Valued Member

    Hey, you're the one who said it is grade school understanding.

    relativity and QP are perfectly logical. You take an axiom, apply math, and from that, all conclusions follow. These conclusions have been tested and proven. Ergo, it is all logical. Not obvious, not common sense, but logic has nothing to do with either of them.
     
  16. 8limbs38112

    8limbs38112 Valued Member

    Ok. So have they measured (scientists or statisticians) what the probablity is that the BIg Bang Theory actually happened? Or can it even be measured? Do all scientists agree that it is highly probable? I am curious.
     
  17. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    All scientists?
    The definition of a scientist can be anyone regardless of education and background who uses the scientific method to test hypotheses. That could be the kid testing in his backyard if all ants burn under magnifying glasses or the undergraduate student testing the power outputs of football players (me) or the guy with a PhD in astrophysics measuring the trajectory of comets.

    So all scientists do not agree.

    Within the academic scientific community, especially those well versed in physics, there is broadly a consensus (lots of people who study it do think the big bang theory has the most evidence) BUT everyone is trying really hard to prove the big bang theory wrong (and every other major theory) because it'll get them prizes and they'll be famous for disproving it.

    Also if you have an argument with one of these scientist, you can ask for their data and run your own tests or even try studying it yourself (if you have the know how or equipment which many labs do).

    I personally cannot answer on the big bang theory - im not a physicist and i do not really understand it myself (not even a basic education in physics). But a number of scientists from a number of countries are studying it and often find the same results.

    but ask away on evolution - that has a very very large consensus and there is emerging evidence that it was most right but there are some things that older theories got more right (epigenetics and lamarckian evolution). i can explain this more in detail.
     
  18. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    I posted two good sources above that I'm practically quoting from, but take a look.

    Relativity and quantum mechanics are not perfectly logical in the Classical Logic sense. You could argue that quantum theories spawned "Quantum logic", but they are drastically different and other than using "logic" in the word, that's about as similar as they get, including at the mathematical level. Very illogical things happen all the time in quantum space, in black holes, and in the mind. The most important difference is in how we (humans) perceive the universe. We only perceive the "Classical Logic"...the quantum "logic" if humans can perceive it all, exists in our wildest imaginations. "Alternative" logic if you want to call it that, exists in extreme gravity, at the center of certain stars, and deep at the subatomic fabric. But that "alternative" logic is not logical (to a human, using classical logic as defined in the Original Post, as their device). Quantum effects and how they work clearly exist in a realm outside of human reason, and occasionally a brilliant physicist will gain an insight that explains more. Those insights and the physicists working on them aren't bothering with "logic", they have to think much bigger (and smaller). That's why they call it a "leap" of intuition....logic gets you so far, and then it does take something "special", doesn't it.

    Reason must eventually concede there are "other possibilities" just outside its understanding of "what is", otherwise it becomes unreasonable. It's also perfectly reasonable to state something isn't "understandable" at all, which takes us back to the unsolvable, unassailable problems (math has thousands of these even today). To be reasonable, you have to accept that some problems may eventually become solvable, but that means also that some will remain a mystery until the end of our time or all time (the realm of religion).

    Einstein's equations try to divide by zero in their attempt to describe relativity. Logic as it existed at the time failed, but over time a new understanding was developed, but to call it "logical" in the classical sense is still wrong. In order to even develop it, humans had to start thinking (and doing their calculations) very "illogically". I personally think Newton would be aghast, brother :)

    This is my whole point (really, the point of several leading men of letters in modern sciences and Philosophy), that logic must expand to accept the impossible (indeed it did over the 20th century and beyond), or else it is no longer very good at describing reality. Any logical statement or math can be at the same time both true and false. This sort of "pseudo-logical reality" is a post Quantum Theory phenomenon...prior to the quantum age logic was black and white. We could not accept quantum mechanics without altering classical logic to include the chaos and bizarre world of quanta.

    It begs the assertion that God or Science could be always be true and false at the same time. Spooky math! Existentialism at it's best, in my humble opinion. Don't worry, I won't ever bring Nietzsche into online discussions, I want you to like me :) Kierkegaard, maybe...anybody here a fan???? The philosophy and history of science is my second love next to cultural anthropology hence my seriousness, but I will try to lighten up.

    NOTE I have not argued for the existence of a deity yet in the thread, merely the quantum possibility of one!!! Have at ye! :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2015
  19. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Science doesn't quite operate that way. It's not like evolution or the big bang is 75% true or has a 87% likelihood of being true, it's how well they generate predictions and how well those predictions fit with the evidence. So here are some for the big bang:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

    Any theory that challenges the big bang theory must explain these facts as well or better than the big bang does.
     
  20. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    So your argument is that, because there is a rigorously tested and well evidenced alternative form of logic that was necessary to adopt because of our explorations, the hallucinations of goat farmers are possible? Yup, OK. Yes it's possible that pink elephants might materialize out of your butt, just as it's possible that the raw material of organic life might rearrange itself into a human child in your lower intestine, but I'm pretty sure that's only happened once.

    [​IMG]

    Your hypothesis literally does nothing to generate any new predictions, anything testable, anything useful. Which brings up another really important distinction between science and religion: you can use science to actually do work, to learn more about the world.
     

Share This Page