There are others worlds than these.

[pathoftheturtle]

...I cannot/will not believe in something that cannot be measured or observed.
... the way I view things: everyone else has the burden of proof; I get the luxury of sitting back and awaiting their proof.

Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

I think other life forms have visited us in space craft and via interdeminsional travel.

As soon as they studied us they put barriers in place that will never allow us to get out of this galaxy.
Humans are a plaque and by our own actions we have shown that we cannot be trusted.
If time travel were possible they would probably have already came back and destroyed us.

If not removed regularly by good oral hygiene measures, plaque can lead to cavities or periodontal problems (such as gingivitis or chronic periodontitis).

[Quicksilver]

Humans are a plaque

I stand corrupted.

[Brice]

[SynysterSaint]

Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

Here are my beliefs on the universe: read the works of Stephen Hawking. Burden of proof simply means that when someone states a theory or idea that goes against the proven norm, it is their job to express proof or evidence that led them to a conclusion. We can prove things about our universe, such as its existence, but we can't prove that other universes exist; therefore, I don't believe in them. Simple as that. If someone can prove to me, for instance, that other universes exist, then I will believe in them. Nice try, though. I haven't heard that rebuttal before I'm completely serious, by the way.

[Brice]

Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

Here are my beliefs on the universe: read the works of Stephen Hawking. Burden of proof simply means that when someone states a theory or idea that goes against the proven norm, it is their job to express proof or evidence that led them to a conclusion. We can prove things about our universe, such as its existence, but we can't prove that other universes exist; therefore, I don't believe in them. Simple as that. If someone can prove to me, for instance, that other universes exist, then I will believe in them. Nice try, though. I haven't heard that rebuttal before I'm completely serious, by the way.

As a long time agnostic (for lack of a better word) I'll say they only have a burden of proof if they care what you believe. If they are not trying to win converts or to convince they are free of any burden. Mere belief does not obligate anyone to prove or provide evidence to the rest of humanity. For example if I believe in god, but really don't give a fuck if you believe and in no way try to imprint upon you my belief then I have no burden of proving anything, right?

[SynysterSaint]

As a long time agnostic (for lack of a better word) I'll say they only have a burden of proof if they care what you believe. If they are not trying to win converts or to convince they are free of any burden. Mere belief does not obligate anyone to prove or provide evidence to the rest of humanity. For example if I believe in god, but really don't give a fuck if you believe and in no way try to imprint upon you my belief then I have no burden of proving anything, right?

Exactly. If you don't want to give evidence or support (or can't) for your beliefs, then it's no big deal; I just won't agree with them. It's really not an issue. My beliefs stem from the evidence that scientists have put forth about our existence. If someone here were trying to convince me of something, then the burden of proof falls onto them. However, no one here is trying to convince anyone of anything; it's just a simple discussion. Therefore, proof isn't necessary. I just pointed out "burden of proof" to explain why I think the way I do about our existence. Nothing more.

[Brice]

But what's provable now wouldn't have been provable a thousand or a hundred years ago even, no? Really truth is only relative to our current knowledge. There was a time when you would have believed the earth was flat or we were the center of our galaxy based on existing knowledge going by that logic. Science's only real advantage is that it is mutable where religion is generally less so...or not at all.

I'm a cantankerous fucker and tend to argue against my own logic sometimes.

[pathoftheturtle]

I'm a cantankerous fucker and tend to argue against my own logic sometimes.

Probably the thing which I most admire about you.

Yet your personal states of belief and/or disbelief cannot be directly observed by the rest of us; therefore, by the same token, that point doesn't really matter. One thing which I, for one, don't have is the luxury of time to waste arguing with the obstinate. You sound most self-satisfied, so all I have to say is just go on, then; enjoy that position for as long as you can.

Here are my beliefs on the universe: read the works of Stephen Hawking. Burden of proof simply means that when someone states a theory or idea that goes against the proven norm, it is their job to express proof or evidence that led them to a conclusion. We can prove things about our universe, such as its existence, but we can't prove that other universes exist; therefore, I don't believe in them. Simple as that. If someone can prove to me, for instance, that other universes exist, then I will believe in them. Nice try, though. I haven't heard that rebuttal before I'm completely serious, by the way.

Hawking makes a good source, though he did not invent the basic principle that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

For my earlier “rebuttal,” I must admit also to having other influences. I am not a real James devotee -- please don’t get that idea -- or any kind of pragmatist, in fact; but just to show that my response is no brand new attitude –-

“…a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn, -- so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods exhort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. …”

~ William James,
“The Will To Believe”

In the same address, he argued –

” …to say…‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ is itself a passional decision, -- just like deciding yes or no, -- and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.
…There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion… We must know the truth; and we must avoid error … they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. Although it may indeed happen that when we believe the truth A, we escape as an incidental consequence from believing the falsehood B, it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may… fall into believing other falsehoods…just as bad…or we may escape B by not believing anything at all, not even A.
…he who says, ‘Better to go without belief forever than believe a lie!’ merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. …
…Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier…the most fitting for an empiricist...”

You see, without SOME presumption, some emotional preconception, the scientific method could not function at all. Robotic objectivity devises no new hypotheses. Only fools disparage the passionate, imaginative approach: that is one great human virtue.

Your claim that existence is a proven quality of “our” universe seems highly Cartesian to me; again you assume that the evidence of your own senses is the one unshakable standard. A Chinese proverb has that, “The man who doubts everything must even doubt his own uncertainty, and is so doomed to hopeless confusion.” Consider the depths to which such thinkers as David Hume have carried enquiry on human understanding. Start by claiming that the idea of God is a subjective illusion, and end in the realization that all self-perception is equally doubtable. To all appearances, YOU are just a segment of the world mechanism which happens somehow to imagine that it is able to have imagination. LOL, judge not lest ye be judged.

In short, I don’t mean to say that I don’t care about your soul: I’m saying that if you were really soulless, then you’d care about no one. Some truths are beyond measure.

Regarding the alternate worlds theory, I’ve stated already that I have my own skepticisms, but I know that there are physicists who do active research with it.
I don’t expect particle experiments to be important here, though; this thread is focused more toward speculative philosophy. The theory’s concepts are quite thought-provoking, and I don’t think that we have actually gone much off-topic at all. So far, we’ve discussed theology only in a tangential way, but there are a lot of interesting points to be found in comparing the two disciplines. Those connections are particularly relevant, I think, when we’re looking at extra-dimensional metaphysics in context of TDT. They’re pretty central to the whole series, IMO, although that’s all quite complicated. Another novel which probes some religious implications of the science in a more straightforward manner is Robert Heinlein’s Job: A Comedy of Justice.

[Quicksilver]

Many years ago I read a Sci-fi story about a group of designers that had built a super computer (this was in the days when a small computer took up a big room).
Once they had everything hooked up and ready to go one of the guys put in the first question which was, "is there a God"?
The computer hummed for a day or two (I said I read it many years ago) and then finally the answer appeared on the monitor.
The answer was "there is now".

When they tried to pull the plug a bolt of electricity flew out of the machine and killed them.

God created Man......Man created God.

[Bear667]

Jumping in with both feet here.

I do indeed believe in the Multi-verse. Do I have proof? Not a lick, but here is my theory Daja Vue (spelling ?) Could it be that the effect that we feel as daja vue actually happened to our other "selves" and through a connection that both of ourselves have, we, on this side, "feel like we've done this before"?

OR

I should not eat pizza before going to bed. LOL.

[pathoftheturtle]

Many years ago I read a Sci-fi story about a group of designers that had built a super computer (this was in the days when a small computer took up a big room).
Once they had everything hooked up and ready to go one of the guys put in the first question which was, "is there a God"?
The computer hummed for a day or two (I said I read it many years ago) and then finally the answer appeared on the monitor.
The answer was "there is now".

When they tried to pull the plug a bolt of electricity flew out of the machine and killed them.

God created Man......Man created God.

"Dr. Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man kills God. Man creates dinosaurs. ...
Dr. Ellie Sattler: ... Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth."

-- Jurassic Park

Srsly, tho, here's another classic take on the concept:
Colossus: The Forbin Project

The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.

Bear: "Déjà vu"

[SynysterSaint]

But what's provable now wouldn't have been provable a thousand or a hundred years ago even, no? Really truth is only relative to our current knowledge. There was a time when you would have believed the earth was flat or we were the center of our galaxy based on existing knowledge going by that logic. Science's only real advantage is that it is mutable where religion is generally less so...or not at all.

I'm a cantankerous fucker and tend to argue against my own logic sometimes.

Exactly. My knowledge is constantly morphing and changing, and, as such, so are my views. I would rather view the world with fresh eyes every few years than to confine myself to one set of beliefs that have no backing or ground for the rest of my life. You may claim that it's different than that, but in reality it isn't: when you set your beliefs on zero facts, then they have no motive or possibility of changing unless you suddenly change your mind. With science, you are always guaranteed a fresh image. I would say that garnering science is much more interesting than playing darts in the dark.

[SynysterSaint]

Hawking makes a good source, though he did not invent the basic principle that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

Does he have to be the one to come up with it?

For my earlier “rebuttal,” I must admit also to having other influences. I am not a real James devotee -- please don’t get that idea -- or any kind of pragmatist, in fact; but just to show that my response is no brand new attitude –-

“…a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn, -- so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods exhort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. …”

~ William James,
“The Will To Believe”

I would be more obliged to listen to Mr. James if he wasn't so caught up in his own foolishness. I'm sorry to say it, but his argument is a circular one; an argument that begs the question. His own conclusion is used as proof of his premises; one should not stick to facts because it will make you lose site of the divine, which is furthered by your desire to conquer the divine with logic. No matter how you spin it, his argument is self-destructive.

In the same address, he argued –

” …to say…‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ is itself a passional decision, -- just like deciding yes or no, -- and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.
…There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion… We must know the truth; and we must avoid error … they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. Although it may indeed happen that when we believe the truth A, we escape as an incidental consequence from believing the falsehood B, it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may… fall into believing other falsehoods…just as bad…or we may escape B by not believing anything at all, not even A.
…he who says, ‘Better to go without belief forever than believe a lie!’ merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. …
…Our errors are surely not such awfully solemn things. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier…the most fitting for an empiricist...”

You see, without SOME presumption, some emotional preconception, the scientific method could not function at all. Robotic objectivity devises no new hypotheses. Only fools disparage the passionate, imaginative approach: that is one great human virtue.

Well that's not true at all. Hypothesis are derived from simple observations, which is then tested through experiments and proven to be legitimate or illegitimate. There's no belief or emotional content needed; ideally, the scientific method is completely robotic. It's meant to create papers and ideas that can be tested and tried countless times with no differences in results.

Your claim that existence is a proven quality of “our” universe seems highly Cartesian to me; again you assume that the evidence of your own senses is the one unshakable standard. A Chinese proverb has that, “The man who doubts everything must even doubt his own uncertainty, and is so doomed to hopeless confusion.” Consider the depths to which such thinkers as David Hume have carried enquiry on human understanding. Start by claiming that the idea of God is a subjective illusion, and end in the realization that all self-perception is equally doubtable. To all appearances, YOU are just a segment of the world mechanism which happens somehow to imagine that it is able to have imagination. LOL, judge not lest ye be judged.

I go by the evidence that myself and others have collected, sorted and calculated. Of course the reality may be that we're completely wrong and our observations are useless, but until that day occurs, I stick to the facts that have been proven to the best of our ability. It takes no faith to believe in science; it takes faith to question it. If you are really so concerned with our inability to understand the world around us, then, by all means, try to convince yourself that I should question what I can prove. But reality isn't as subjective as you make it out to seem. Gravity is gravity. Wavelengths are wavelengths; they don't magically change properties. Sure, science could be wrong. But as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.

In short, I don’t mean to say that I don’t care about your soul: I’m saying that if you were really soulless, then you’d care about no one. Some truths are beyond measure.

Thank you for the bode of confidence. Just because I'm cold about belief does not mean that I'm cold about humanity.

Regarding the alternate worlds theory, I’ve stated already that I have my own skepticisms, but I know that there are physicists who do active research with it.

I'm going to cut off the rest of your statement and stop you here for one reason: you're delving into the realm of string physics. The thing about string physics is that it isn't real science; instead of deriving hypothesis from observed measurements and testing them with experiments, it is deriving experiments to prove their guesses. I do not condone the raping of science, which is why I got out of the physics program at my school and entered the English program.

[pathoftheturtle]

... My knowledge is constantly morphing and changing, and, as such, so are my views. I would rather view the world with fresh eyes every few years than to confine myself to one set of beliefs that have no backing or ground for the rest of my life. You may claim that it's different than that, but in reality it isn't: when you set your beliefs on zero facts, then they have no motive or possibility of changing unless you suddenly change your mind. With science, you are always guaranteed a fresh image. I would say that garnering science is much more interesting than playing darts in the dark.

We probably WILL go far off topic if we turn to formal debate on the merits/demerits of theism, but you sound so arrogant. People tend to have strong feelings on the subject of religion. Perhaps it makes you defensive when I contradict your assertions about your belief system; I hope you’ll understand that you’re the one who started it, from my point of view. All you say is how superior your way is… yet I know from my own experience that I don’t need to be converted.
Certainly constant growth and continual learning are essential. It offends me to hear it said that, as a person of faith, I am incapable of those things. Right there is something which I think that you have a lot to learn about.

Hawking makes a good source, though he did not invent the basic principle that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

Does he have to be the one to come up with it?

I was thinking that you might expand upon your reasons for bringing him up.

For my earlier “rebuttal,” I must admit also to having other influences. I am not a real James devotee -- please don’t get that idea -- or any kind of pragmatist, in fact; but just to show that my response is no brand new attitude –-

“…a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn, -- so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods exhort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. …”

~ William James,
“The Will To Believe”

I would be more obliged to listen to Mr. James if he wasn't so caught up in his own foolishness. I'm sorry to say it, but his argument is a circular one; an argument that begs the question. His own conclusion is used as proof of his premises; one should not stick to facts because it will make you lose site of the divine, which is furthered by your desire to conquer the divine with logic. No matter how you spin it, his argument is self-destructive.

Have you read much of his work? As I implied earlier, he did have some major shortcomings on the whole, IMO… and now I wonder if that might be what you’re talking about. If you’re drawing connections just between the two quotes which I provided, then maybe it is simply that I am not getting what you mean.
You appear to be replying here to that single passage, which is not a complete argument at all. Besides that, I didn’t intend to obligate you with it, in any way. You expressed some interest in the tack that I had taken; I only meant to share some background. But even if that sentence of his were a failed attempt to prove premises, rather than a mere stating of some, I would think that you’d just call it “unconvincing.” Begging a question really is not the most self-defeating of fallacies. If your point is only that you needn’t listen to one who says not what you want to hear, then I think that you’re kind of begging the question yourself, but naturally that doesn’t prove that your ideas are false.

...You see, without SOME presumption, some emotional preconception, the scientific method could not function at all. Robotic objectivity devises no new hypotheses. Only fools disparage the passionate, imaginative approach: that is one great human virtue.

Well that's not true at all. Hypothesis are derived from simple observations, which is then tested through experiments and proven to be legitimate or illegitimate. There's no belief or emotional content needed; ideally, the scientific method is completely robotic. It's meant to create papers and ideas that can be tested and tried countless times with no differences in results.

But in fact there are emotional value judgments involved; it is only when someone believes that there exists a problem to be solved that they apply scientific method. Hypotheses cannot be passively “derived” from observations, they must be intentionally dreamed up in hope of explaining the phenomena observed. Then they may be tried and tested, sure, but still we would get nowhere without some creativity from someone. (As, for example, when Hugh Everett proposed parallel universes to rationalize Schrödinger’s cat. To the school which still favors the Copenhagen interpretation, reality is extremely subjective, isn’t it? Yet how else can we account for those phenomena?)

Your claim that existence is a proven quality of “our” universe seems highly Cartesian to me; again you assume that the evidence of your own senses is the one unshakable standard. A Chinese proverb has that, “The man who doubts everything must even doubt his own uncertainty, and is so doomed to hopeless confusion.” Consider the depths to which such thinkers as David Hume have carried enquiry on human understanding. Start by claiming that the idea of God is a subjective illusion, and end in the realization that all self-perception is equally doubtable. To all appearances, YOU are just a segment of the world mechanism which happens somehow to imagine that it is able to have imagination. LOL, judge not lest ye be judged.

I go by the evidence that myself and others have collected, sorted and calculated. Of course the reality may be that we're completely wrong and our observations are useless, but until that day occurs, I stick to the facts that have been proven to the best of our ability. It takes no faith to believe in science; it takes faith to question it. If you are really so concerned with our inability to understand the world around us, then, by all means, try to convince yourself that I should question what I can prove. But reality isn't as subjective as you make it out to seem. Gravity is gravity. Wavelengths are wavelengths; they don't magically change properties. Sure, science could be wrong. But as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.

If no scientists had faith enough to question, science could not progress. That’s exactly my point. I think you’re being rather dogmatic about it. Gravity is a good example: who knows WHY it exists? Here’s one of the points for which Hume’s writings are particularly relevant.

...as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.

He was skeptic enough to question how we know that.

“… In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities. This happens sometimes, and with regard to some objects. Why may it not happen always, and with regard to all objects? What logic, what process of argument secures you against this supposition? …
… it is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. …”

~ David Hume

“Gravity is gravity.” Talk about a circular argument!

“…When anyone says that an unsupported body which is heavier than air necessarily falls to the ground, the necessity is not in nature, but in the rules of definition. If it did not fall to the ground, it would not fit what we mean by ‘heavier than air.’ …”

~ Alan Watts

What is subjective here is just specific ideas about what reality might be.

... Just because I'm cold about belief does not mean that I'm cold about humanity.

*sigh* Well, I hear that all the time. I know that many other believers say that there’s a connection, and atheists never seem to be able to see why. “Believing in God doesn’t have anything to do with respecting human dignity!” all mutter … and then they turn right back to working on human cloning, and psychological profiling, and artificial intelligence, and so on and so on.

Regarding the alternate worlds theory, I’ve stated already that I have my own skepticisms, but I know that there are physicists who do active research with it.

I'm going to cut off the rest of your statement and stop you here for one reason: you're delving into the realm of string physics. The thing about string physics is that it isn't real science; instead of deriving hypothesis from observed measurements and testing them with experiments, it is deriving experiments to prove their guesses. I do not condone the raping of science, which is why I got out of the physics program at my school and entered the English program.

I happen to believe that a lot of rape indeed is happening these days, but I’ve never seen science as the victim.
Ultimately, I suppose that you and I may just have to agree to disagree. Devising experiments to prove guesses (a.k.a. hypotheses) is precisely how science functions! I still think that it’s foolish to deny that, but you seem pretty committed, and as I’ve said, I have only so much time to spare. I absolutely hope that you’ll be more successful at appreciating poetry.

“… this command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, instincts, and courage and wait – acting of course meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true -- … seems to me the queerest idol ever manufactured in the philosophic cave. … Indeed we may wait if we will –- I hope you do not think that I am denying that, -- but if we do so, we do so at our own peril as much as if we believed. In either case we act, taking our life in our hands. No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another’s mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism’s glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things. …”

~ “The Will to Believe”

[SynysterSaint]

We probably WILL go far off topic if we turn to formal debate on the merits/demerits of theism, but you sound so arrogant. People tend to have strong feelings on the subject of religion. Perhaps it makes you defensive when I contradict your assertions about your belief system; I hope you’ll understand that you’re the one who started it, from my point of view. All you say is how superior your way is… yet I know from my own experience that I don’t need to be converted.

Good, because I'm not trying to convert you; I'm simply stating my manner of beliefs about the universe: if it can't be proven or tested, then I don't believe it. I never claimed to know everything about the universe. In fact, I'm only know as much as science can prove. Just because I can mathematically or scientific prove my ideas about the universe, and therefore do not subscribe to other theories, certainly does not make me arrogant. I'm not closing off all areas of possibility; I love hearing new ideas! I'm simply saying that I don't believe them. That's all. I'm not claiming to be superior; I'm saying that I'm right so far as we can prove. It's completely possible for anyone else's ideas to be correct, it's just that we can't prove it at the moment. If another idea (such as multiverses) are proven to be correct, then I will believe them. If you have such a hard time with my concordance with science, then don't listen to what I say. If you think I'm on such a high throne, then don't respond to me. It's one thing to disagree with me and have a friendly debate; it's another thing entirely to start being hostile.

Certainly constant growth and continual learning are essential. It offends me to hear it said that, as a person of faith, I am incapable of those things. Right there is something which I think that you have a lot to learn about.

I'm not claiming that you aren't capable of intelligent growth and learning; I'm saying that, by definition of an unprovable belief, the beliefs cannot change for any reason other than you want them to. If you believe that aliens control all of us through remotes in our brains that are impossible to see, find, or measure, then there's nowhere for that idea to go; it can't be proven, and it cannot be changed by anything other than desire for it to change. You are stuck with that belief until you arbitrarily interchange it with something else. With science, beliefs about the universe are almost always guaranteed to change with new evidence.

I was thinking that you might expand upon your reasons for bringing him up.

Hawking is, for the most part, the final say in modern physics. Not to mention he has written a few books that very simply and easily outline the general laws of the universe as we know them.

Begging a question really is not the most self-defeating of fallacies. If your point is only that you needn’t listen to one who says not what you want to hear, then I think that you’re kind of begging the question yourself, but naturally that doesn’t prove that your ideas are false.

If an argument is begging the question, then it is neither a sound argument nor is it a valid argument. I'm not saying that it's wrong because it doesn't fit what I want to hear; I'm saying it's wrong because it's a bad argument.

But in fact there are emotional value judgments involved; it is only when someone believes that there exists a problem to be solved that they apply scientific method. Hypotheses cannot be passively “derived” from observations, they must be intentionally dreamed up in hope of explaining the phenomena observed. Then they may be tried and tested, sure, but still we would get nowhere without some creativity from someone. (As, for example, when Hugh Everett proposed parallel universes to rationalize Schrödinger’s cat. To the school which still favors the Copenhagen interpretation, reality is extremely subjective, isn’t it? Yet how else can we account for those phenomena

In a perfect environment, hypothesis are derived much as a robot would do: devoid of emotion and feelings. Creativity, realistically, has to be involved, but that doesn't prove that there is emotional judgments or value in it. Observation is the first step in the scientific method; so no, creating a hypothesis is not the first step. They do not try to imagine a solution to the problem until after the scientific method is begun. Granted, we're arguing semantics, but it does matter to the topic at hand, I suppose.

If no scientists had faith enough to question, science could not progress. That’s exactly my point. I think you’re being rather dogmatic about it. Gravity is a good example: who knows WHY it exists? Here’s one of the points for which Hume’s writings are particularly relevant.

...as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.

He was skeptic enough to question how we know that. “Gravity is gravity.” Talk about a circular argument! What is subjective here is just specific ideas about what reality might be.

What I'm saying here is that some basic scientific principles will never be proven wrong or change. I'm not using "Gravity is gravity" to prove gravity; of course that's the most basic circular argument one could provide! Instead, I'm saying that we're not suddenly going to turn around and say that gravity doesn't exist or that it doesn't accelerate objects at -9.81m/s^2 (on Earth). Same thing with the basic mass or charge of a proton. Of course we don't know exactly why these things exist yet, but we know that they do exist; the latter won't change any time soon, if ever.

*sigh* Well, I hear that all the time. I know that many other believers say that there’s a connection, and atheists never seem to be able to see why. “Believing in God doesn’t have anything to do with respecting human dignity!” all mutter … and then they turn right back to working on human cloning, and psychological profiling, and artificial intelligence, and so on and so on.

Respecting human dignity is entirely different than not being cold to humanity. I hate humans and I hate our species, but I certainly would never turn my back on humanity if I had the option to save it. Respecting human dignity is another story entirely. Human cloning, P.P., and A.I. do nothing to hurt humanity, but if you claim that they disrespect human dignity, then I'm one of the worst of the lot. I wish for expanses in all three of those fields!

I happen to believe that a lot of rape indeed is happening these days, but I’ve never seen science as the victim.
Ultimately, I suppose that you and I may just have to agree to disagree. Devising experiments to prove guesses (a.k.a. hypotheses) is precisely how science functions! I still think that it’s foolish to deny that, but you seem pretty committed, and as I’ve said, I have only so much time to spare.

Scientific Method:
Observation
Hypothesis
Experiment
Results/Theory

But you see, there's no observation in string physics! They're blindly creating experiments in the hopes of proving theories that they have no other evidence for. It completely goes against the founding principles of modern science. There is no agree or disagree here. If you cannot understand that much, then you really don't have enough time for this. I gave up a future of being a physicist because of the new wave of string physicists that are required at the large hadron colliders (where I wanted to work). So, please, don't belittle my knowledge of modern science or, for that matter, physics. I understand how the scientific method works, I understand how experiments are derived and performed, and I especially understand how badly it's being raped at the moment.

I'm not entirely sure why you keep assuming that I'm attacking your belief structure or claiming to be superior. I was simply explaining why I think the way I do and why I don't subscribe to other trains of thought. At this point, I'm on the defensive; you're the one who keeps pushing. Notice how all of my responses are either defenses of my original position (I stick to proven facts or mathematically sound arguments) or defending against your arguments. I'm not arguing against you or your beliefs; right now I'm backed into a corner and defending myself.

[pathoftheturtle]

We probably WILL go far off topic if we turn to formal debate on the merits/demerits of theism, but you sound so arrogant. People tend to have strong feelings on the subject of religion. Perhaps it makes you defensive when I contradict your assertions about your belief system; I hope you’ll understand that you’re the one who started it, from my point of view. All you say is how superior your way is… yet I know from my own experience that I don’t need to be converted.

Good, because I'm not trying to convert you; I'm simply stating my manner of beliefs about the universe: if it can't be proven or tested, then I don't believe it. I never claimed to know everything about the universe. In fact, I'm only know as much as science can prove. Just because I can mathematically or scientific prove my ideas about the universe, and therefore do not subscribe to other theories, certainly does not make me arrogant. I'm not closing off all areas of possibility; I love hearing new ideas! I'm simply saying that I don't believe them. That's all. I'm not claiming to be superior; I'm saying that I'm right so far as we can prove. It's completely possible for anyone else's ideas to be correct, it's just that we can't prove it at the moment. If another idea (such as multiverses) are proven to be correct, then I will believe them. If you have such a hard time with my concordance with science, then don't listen to what I say. If you think I'm on such a high throne, then don't respond to me. It's one thing to disagree with me and have a friendly debate; it's another thing entirely to start being hostile.

I'm not becoming hostile. You’d know if I was. It’s one thing to openly oppose hyper-rationalism; it’s another thing entirely to start being psychopathic. Even if we don’t conform to cultural expectations, we may express ourselves in a free society.
You can believe whatever you like, and of course I don’t have to listen to you… but when you enter debate with my friends then I have every reason to attempt to counter your position, and if it is the testing system you’re promoting to which I should happen to be opposed, then I have every right to try to illustrate alternatives, even without meeting your requirements. Your case is just one big Catch-22. It is as if to say “It’s not that you’re automatically wrong to say that the Great Brain’s opinion is not the ultimate standard of truth, only that the point remains uncertain until you have convinced the Great Brain of it.” What I say is that there are realities more profound than can be expressed in mathematics. I know that you didn’t personally coin that phrase “so far as we can prove,” but just to further emphasize the point here: If you wished to be less presumptuous, you might just say that you are right so far as has yet been proven to your own satisfaction. Only by one definition is what is accepted by the scientific collective what “can” be proved.

Certainly constant growth and continual learning are essential. It offends me to hear it said that, as a person of faith, I am incapable of those things. Right there is something which I think that you have a lot to learn about.

I'm not claiming that you aren't capable of intelligent growth and learning; I'm saying that, by definition of an unprovable belief, the beliefs cannot change for any reason other than you want them to. If you believe that aliens control all of us through remotes in our brains that are impossible to see, find, or measure, then there's nowhere for that idea to go; it can't be proven, and it cannot be changed by anything other than desire for it to change. You are stuck with that belief until you arbitrarily interchange it with something else. With science, beliefs about the universe are almost always guaranteed to change with new evidence.

It was Christianity and religion which you were talking about up until this. So are you now equating alien remotes with the God that I believe in?
If you can honestly say “no” then I really will apologize for taking this discussion personally.
I still think that you and Brice mischaracterized religion. This interpretation of “unprovability” is basically subjective, and regardless of their founding credo, so to speak, many scientists are no more flexible than anyone about their essential facts.

If an argument is begging the question, then it is neither a sound argument nor is it a valid argument. I'm not saying that it's wrong because it doesn't fit what I want to hear; I'm saying it's wrong because it's a bad argument.

… But just because a statement is invalid as a formal argument does not necessarily imply that it has no validity in any other capacity. Would it be “wrong” for me to post some lyric or verse with no persuasive intent whatsoever? Again I tell you that you perceived aggression when there was none.
Since we’re arguing now, though, I’ll also repeat that more logic can be found in the context which I took that out of. If I must be blunt, I don’t believe that you can fairly judge unless you have indeed read all of that before. If so, I’d love to enter a debate in detail. (Although I’d suggest we do it @ TaRDT.) If not, I think you should explain the basis of your verdict or admit to jumping to conclusions.

But in fact there are emotional value judgments involved; it is only when someone believes that there exists a problem to be solved that they apply scientific method. Hypotheses cannot be passively “derived” from observations, they must be intentionally dreamed up in hope of explaining the phenomena observed. Then they may be tried and tested, sure, but still we would get nowhere without some creativity from someone. (As, for example, when Hugh Everett proposed parallel universes to rationalize Schrödinger’s cat. To the school which still favors the Copenhagen interpretation, reality is extremely subjective, isn’t it? Yet how else can we account for those phenomena

In a perfect environment, hypothesis are derived much as a robot would do: devoid of emotion and feelings. Creativity, realistically, has to be involved, but that doesn't prove that there is emotional judgments or value in it.

By so defining what type of environment is “perfect” you have already made a value judgment. I’m sure you’ll say that it’s a justified one, not based upon mere human feeling, but I still don’t see the good.

Observation is the first step in the scientific method; so no, creating a hypothesis is not the first step. They do not try to imagine a solution to the problem until after the scientific method is begun. Granted, we're arguing semantics, but it does matter to the topic at hand, I suppose.

Sure. The topic is belief. Should we be empowered to determine personally whether we each believe in other worlds, or is this the type of question properly deferred to organized social institutions, and if the latter, is their methodology consistent enough for all of us to be absolutely assured of the validity of their decision?

If no scientists had faith enough to question, science could not progress. That’s exactly my point. I think you’re being rather dogmatic about it. Gravity is a good example: who knows WHY it exists? Here’s one of the points for which Hume’s writings are particularly relevant.

...as far as we know, some simple properties will never be proven wrong.

He was skeptic enough to question how we know that. “Gravity is gravity.” Talk about a circular argument! What is subjective here is just specific ideas about what reality might be.

What I'm saying here is that some basic scientific principles will never be proven wrong or change. I'm not using "Gravity is gravity" to prove gravity; of course that's the most basic circular argument one could provide! Instead, I'm saying that we're not suddenly going to turn around and say that gravity doesn't exist or that it doesn't accelerate objects at -9.81m/s^2 (on Earth). Same thing with the basic mass or charge of a proton. Of course we don't know exactly why these things exist yet, but we know that they do exist; the latter won't change any time soon, if ever.

And again, if we don't know exactly why these things exist yet (if ever), then how can you know that their existence will not change?
As for your circular argument, what I think is not that you were trying to prove gravity, but that you were trying to use the idea of gravity to prove that some ideas are objective truths immune to misconception. As I see it, however, the very question at stake here is whether putting something into words or numbers really can define it. Even now, it might perhaps be that the word “gravity” simply distracts us from seeing how effects are produced by the unified field. Or perhaps there’s something even stranger. Sure, you have admitted this in theory, but you demonstrate an adherence to established theory in practice which does indeed take faith.

Respecting human dignity is entirely different than not being cold to humanity. I hate humans and I hate our species, but I certainly would never turn my back on humanity if I had the option to save it. Respecting human dignity is another story entirely.

I free associated somewhat. (I regard that as a virtue.) You’re right that there’s a clear distinction. So, could we agree that, “Few atheists would deliberately choose not to save humanity, but many do have little true respect for human dignity.” …? :smirk:

Human cloning, P.P., and A.I. do nothing to hurt humanity...

Well, that’s not true at all. Just wait and see.
Already we are in the red with all the energy which has been wasted on such mad science, but right now the biggest trouble is the damn psychology. I deal with behaviorist bureaucrats every day: there is nothing which causes me more disgust or misery.

...there's no observation in string physics! They're blindly creating experiments in the hopes of proving theories that they have no other evidence for. It completely goes against the founding principles of modern science.

The apparatus by which our civilization has long justified rape of the earth and “pre-modern” peoples? Aw, what a shame.

...There is no agree or disagree here. If you cannot understand that much, then you really don't have enough time for this. I gave up a future of being a physicist because of the new wave of string physicists that are required at the large hadron colliders (where I wanted to work). So, please, don't belittle my knowledge of modern science or, for that matter, physics. ...

I understand just fine. I’m not belittling your knowledge. I am belittling that whole philosophy. “There is no agree or disagree here.” -- And you see no arrogance in yourselves. Knowledge of institutional structures is nothing that I particularly respect. I do respect the intelligence you’ve certainly evinced; I hope you put it to good use. I like to think that there is room within science for the spirit, but don’t get me wrong; if you do manage to exclude all that, then I will have no qualm about fighting from outside.

I'm not entirely sure why you keep assuming that I'm attacking your belief structure or claiming to be superior. I was simply explaining why I think the way I do and why I don't subscribe to other trains of thought. At this point, I'm on the defensive; you're the one who keeps pushing. Notice how all of my responses are either defenses of my original position (I stick to proven facts or mathematically sound arguments) or defending against your arguments. I'm not arguing against you or your beliefs; right now I'm backed into a corner and defending myself.

What you don’t say, though, is “I am not against religion.” As I tried to explain in my last post, I’m apt to make you feel defensive so long as I have to defend that. I accept neither that it is obsolete nor that it should stay subordinate to popular epistemology.

[SynysterSaint]

What you don’t say, though, is “I am not against religion.” As I tried to explain in my last post, I’m apt to make you feel defensive so long as I have to defend that. I accept neither that it is obsolete nor that it should stay subordinate to popular epistemology.

You brought up a few very good points in your post, but I feel like this is the only one that really needs to be addressed. Otherwise, we would just be rehashing what's already been said and, again, we would be arguing semantics (for the most part). Juxtapose those arguments with what you've brought up above, and I think it's obvious what the real argument is coming down to: yes, I absolutely despise any religious belief or dogma.

I would argue that it is horribly obsolete in the sense that religion has caused some of the largest set-backs in the history of the world. On top of that, religion does not give anything back to modern society; churches can't be taxed and religion does not help find solutions for important scientific, medical, or social issues (in fact, religion is used to perpetuate these issues).

However, I'm not asking you to defend your religious belief or explain why you believe the way you do; I'm certainly not telling you to throw away your belief. As I see it, religion of any kind has been nothing but a horrible curse. Those who are religious can forever beat their opinions and their ideas about its beauty against my head, but it won't do a bit of good. In my eyes, the only thing that matters are facts and the distinctly provable. Faith in the divine or in humanity has never been a benefit. Although, I understand that people who see the world as I do are a horrible minority and that we will forever be under the scrutiny of religious zealots (thankfully, you're much more level-headed than that, which is something I'm horribly appreciative of). No matter how I view religion or religious belief, don't take it personally; you may very well see something I don't. Just please understand that my position is not going to change. I have a cross of confusion tattoo on my right arm for that very reason. I harbor no ill-will towards you because of your religious belief, but I do harbor ill-will towards the religion itself.

Unfortunately, I cannot argue my lack of faith in anything other than science in any public forum or my "reasons" get questioned, whether I submit a post such as this one or not. Being an Atheist devotee of science is not viewed favorably in my corner (or, really, any corner) of the world.

Please, keep in mind: this post is not meant to offend but simply to answer your inquiry. If I have offended, I apologize.

[pathoftheturtle]

Yeah, whatever their stand, people tend to have strong feelings on the subject. If I've seemed intolerant, I apologize. I enjoy talking with you.

We've only touched on knowledge and belief as a topic unto itself, but it might not benefit the thread to go on here with that, either. The important thing is just for everyone to be aware that there are a variety of philosophies.

[SynysterSaint]

You didn't offend at all. You should know this by now, path: regardless of how heated an argument gets, I still consider all of you friends Just because we have an argument doesn't mean I can't take it with a grain of salt

I agree that we strayed a bit from the topic, but I did enjoy our conversation. I could never have an intellectual conversation this in-depth with people around here. So, if I should say anything, thank you!

[Yaksha]

Alternate universes. Parallel earths. a multiverse. You an argue the how, why, when, where all of it all day and night and maybe never get a satisfied answer. Does anybody have any real tangible proof? Can we see hear it smell feel it. No. But just cause you cant see hear smell or feel something does not mean it aint there. Maybe there is maybe there aint. All I know is, i feel like sometimes this whole life, this world cant be the end of it all. To think this tiny planet is all of the life in the universe or multiverse if such a thing exist is beyond egotistical. It borders to blind stupidity. So yeah alternate universes. maybe

[mystima]

I believe there are multi-verses or parallel universes just as much as i believe there is other life "out there" other wise it would just be a waste of space. the reason i believe is because we all chose to make decisions to do certain things whether it is to go to work 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes to late or to go to work or not. The big question you have to ask is "what if?" What if I left for work 5 minutes earlier and missed a major car accident that would have made me late to work? What if I left 5 minutes later and I was in that car accident? In other words If i made one of those decisions in this "world" would I have made the same ones in the other also? Or would just turning left instead of right had made a difference in the world?

I also like the fact that observation is not relevant to what is actually happening. Just like Schrödinger's cat, until you observe the cat in the box, it is both alive and dead at the same time.

[pathoftheturtle]

Yeah, but I hate the idea that what is actually happening is everything that possibly could happen. Not that my feelings determine the truth. I'm just saying, if it's true that all that could happen, must happen, it would mean that since there are a wide variety of ways that you could conceivably be physically tortured, there must be enough universes out there for you to have enough bodies that you can actually be mutilated in each and every one of those ways. Plus, if this is the nature of existence, that every possibility is inevitably realized regardless of what any of us think, then just what is the point?

[SloTrans]

Anyone know where to find one of these thinnies? I need a vacation! Seriously though, I think there are an infinite number of realities limited only by all possible outcomes of all possible choices. Somewhere or when, I AM on vacation.

[SloTrans]

Good point. But I imagine the possibilities would be so numerous as to almost be infinite.

[LadyHitchhiker]

That's not all they do in the water! LOL

But I wrote that I believe in multiverses. For sure along the line of She-Oy but I'm too tired to explain more... Maybe later