Science cannot solve the final mystery

[We Never Know]

Still, you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that it's necessary to believe in God, or a god, in order to act morally?

Being moral, acting morally, etc is a choice we all have and can make, believers and non-believers

 

[Audie]

You are the final mystery. You have to solve it for yourself.

That sounds awfully egotistical, considering what
an ephemeral lil sub-microspeck a person is compared
to the earth, or lets see, some bigger things.

 

[Audie]

It's an uphill battle because people can't accept the idea that modern man might not only be wrong but we aren't the very crown of creation.

It is easy to find stupid people. but either of those
statements as descriptive of sensible / educated
people in general, or of researchers in particular,
that is just bonkers.

 

[We Never Know]

That sounds awfully egotistical, considering what
an ephemeral lil sub-microspeck a person is compared
to the earth, or lets see, some bigger things.

Depending on how you look at his posts, they have some truth in them in that we(life) are yet a mystery. We have theories but still how it all happened is a mystery and we are still working on that mystery.

 

[Audie]

Very true!

The universe isn't mathematical either but math obeys the same rules of logic that govern reality (IMO). There are no "laws of nature" but reality itself is logical and this logic appears to be law from the perspective of our science.

People vastly more sophisticated than you
would not agree with your glib / facile claim.

 

[Audie]

Depending on how you look at his posts, they have some truth in them in that we(life) are yet a mystery. We have theories but still how it all happened is a mystery and we are still working on that mystery.

Of course there are mysteries. Saying humans are
some way the ultimate is about as sensible as
spilling coffee, and announcing it is the worst thing
that ever happened. Going on about it would be
tiresome and then, weird.

 

[Maximilian]

As for abortion, not to mention infanticide

You're not making any sense. How does this answer my simple, straightforward query?

​

 

[Maximilian]

The actual title of Krauss' book is: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing".

I do not understand your strategy.

It seems like you think you know the atheist mindset by heart, yet from the output it's obvious you have barely any experience in actually dealing with people outside your own bubble. Because what you're doing is a disservice to your cause.

For the purposes of context I need to ask, if I may, do you have ASD?

 

[ChristineM]

no one pays attention to Douglas Adams he has already answered the vast majority of questions raised on RF. And to be honest its not the answers that are important but the quest!!!

Of course we eventually arrive at 42 but thats millions of years in the future. Although by then we will have forgotten the question and ask "what is the question to this answer 42".

The question is "what is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything", remember it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature

I'm good with the idea that not all questions can be solved by science. We don't know that that is the case, but it may be, and if so, then people will be left with unanswered questions.

I suspect that your unstated purpose for noting the limitations of science is the usual one - to prop up religion as an alternate way of knowing about reality, a proposition I reject. The usual reason is to reserve a gap in knowledge for this god that increasing has less to do to fill - some job, any job.

But as I noted, there is increasingly little that gods are needed for. The first wave of scientists explained to us how our universe works without intelligent supervision. The sun isn't actually being pulled through the sky by Apollo's chariot, nor lightning bolts the result of Thor's wrath. Both of these phenomenon are natural, not supernatural. The ruler god was excused, but the builder god was still required, and deism was born.

Then the second wave of scientists showed us how the matter in the universe and the tree of life could organize themselves from primordial seeds - the singularity and the first cells - without intelligent supervision, and the deist god was relieved of the responsibility of building the universe. This made atheism tenable, especially given that both origins problems have naturalistic hypotheses that can account for both the singularity and the first biological population.

you underestimate religion

That's not possible.

What value is religion? I live my life without it and find nothing lacking. I feel grounded, centered, and content without it, which I attribute to maturing outside of religion.

Yes, I understand that there are people that are dependent on the belief that they are watched over and protected by an unseen father figure, that they are immortal, and that they will one day be reunited with lost loved ones, but only because they haven't learned to live without such promises. In this sense, religion satisfies a need it perpetuates the way cigarettes do. Sure, a puff fulfills a need in the smoker, but is the smoker really in an enviable position?

Likewise, eyeglasses fulfill a need in those that can't see well without them, as does a prosthetic leg for an amputee, but isn't it better to not be able to benefit from these things because one's eyes already see well and he has two working legs?

The statement “Humans cannot solve…” would express the same thing without opening for the anti-science spin.

But that's the purpose here, isn't it? You or I might also comment on the limitations of science - that its theories can't be proven, that it doesn't have a handle on consciousness yet, that there are limits to induction, etc.. The difference is that we would also be praising science for its achievements as part of that description.

I'm spectacularly impressed with the recent advances in forensic science, which as has so often been the case in the past, is paying off in spades and improving the human condition yet again. Suspects just belly up now and confess, sparing the taxpayer the cost of a trial and the families of the victim and defendant the expense and ordeal of a trial, not to mention serving as a much greater disincentive against crime if the potential perp feels that his chances of being caught approach certainty, and not to mention avoiding convicting an innocent defendant whenever the actual perp is identified

Or how about space exploration, another stunning and relatively recent achievement of science, also not mentioned by those who only discuss science in negative terms such as what it can't do or how its gifts can be misused by government and industry. Science is opening up the solar system and beyond to man to search for extraterrestrial life, to establish extraterrestrial colonies that may preserve man from extinction if earth becomes uninhabitable, and to exploit mineral and other physical resources in space.

the Atheist who rapes a little kid to death ( or engages in this: Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan ) is doing absolutely nothing wrong.

You apparently don't know what a conscience is or what it feels like to have one.

• "Atheist are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you're trying to argue from a position of moral superiority." - Amanda Marcotte

If you had a functional conscience guiding you, you wouldn't have made the error you did. You would understand the moral imperatives that the unbeliever experiences.

Furthermore, I'd add that behavior intended to avoid punishment and to receive a reward is not moral behavior even if it imitates what people with a conscience do for no external reward, but because they are driven to be good for goodness sake. Small children and animals running an agility course operate at that level - compliance with the will of others for a treat.

All the more devastating is the fact that radical positivism is self-refuting. At its heart, this pernicious conviction demands that we not accept any belief that cannot be scientifically verified. But what of that very supposition? It cannot per se be scientifically tested out much less corroborated. As a result, we ought not to believe it. Radical Positivism, as a result, asphyxiates itself.

Except that science works, which is the sine qua non of a correct idea.

The religious have difficulty identifying and interpreting evidence. Science works. It consistently predicts outcomes. With science, it was possible to launch a space probe to Pluto, and expect the probe and the dwarf planet to rendevous in a predetermined time and place several years later. That is the evidence that the science is valid, and that its foundational principles such as skepticism and empiricism are valid tools for understanding and predicting reality.

The scientific philosophy that knowledge of the physical universe requires studying it directly, and that facts are those ideas that can be shown to accurately map some aspect of physical reality, is empirically verified to be correct.

Likewise, the utter sterility of religious thought in these matters is how you know that it is based on false beliefs. That is the sine qua non of a wrong idea, like astrology. It is utterly useless. Change its principles from faith in a magical influence of stars over the lives of men to an empirical science, and it becomes astronomy, which works.

That's evidence and how one can use it to verify or discredit assumptions.

Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended.

Sure it can. Induction is generalization based on prior observations. I just mentioned the New Horizons space probe that rendezvoused with Pluto. How did NASA know where Pluto would be in the time it took for the probe to reach that distance? By induction. It was at point A at time A, point B at time B, etc.., so by extrapolation (induction), we predict that it will be at point X at time X, and direct the probe accordingly. Did they meet? Yes, and that is your evidence that induction was a reliable method.

It may be a mystery to science but people with religious faith understand.

No they don't. Faith is guessing. Pick something you'd like to be true, guess that it is, and believe it. No understanding is possible with that process. It cannot be a path to truth since it equally well supports either of two mutually exclusive ideas. By faith, you can pick and believe either, knowing that at least one is incorrect.

There will be a lot of surprised atheists when the truth comes out.

I'm assuming that you are referring to an unexpected afterlife for the atheist.

The odds are that death is the end of consciousness, and that the dead know nothing. If we happen to awaken to an afterlife, we know nothing about what it will be like. We have no reason to expect to meet gods or be judged, but if we do and are, we know not by whom or according to what standards.

There may be a lot of surprised Christians when they discover that believing that their creator was a judgemental, filicidal, capricious, petulant, pestilential that needed or even wanted their worship is offensive to their judges, and eliminates them from inclusion. I know that I would much rather spend eternity in the company of people who used reason applied to evidence to decide what is true than with those willing to believe the absurd on bad evidence, so it's reasonable to think that any post-mortem judges might as well.

 

[Nakosis]

There are some "truth" that can be known.

Ex: I

In this case I'm referring to religious truth. Spiritual ideas about God and death that are claim by some as truth.

 

[David T]

The question is "what is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything", remember it?

Ru sure? I think we need to build a computer to tell us what 42 means. Then we will really know!

That ironically was douglas adams genius. Rip.

 

[Maximilian]

You didn't answer the question......

Atheists claim to be moral yet they're the ones who push for morally abhorrent acts such as abortion or the marriage of men with boys.

 

[atanu]

I'm good with the idea that not all questions can be solved by science. We don't know that that is the case, but it may be, and if so, then people will be left with unanswered questions.

I suspect that your unstated purpose for noting the limitations of science is the usual one - to prop up religion as an alternate way of knowing about reality, a proposition I reject. The usual reason is to reserve a gap in knowledge for this god that increasing has less to do to fill - th of these phenomenon are natural, not supernatural. The ruler god was excused, but the builder god was still required, and deism was born....QUOTE]

I'm good with the red part. The rest is your own mind. It is not the subject of this thread.
...

 

[dybmh]

You are the final mystery. You have to solve it for yourself.

That sounds awfully egotistical, considering what
an ephemeral lil sub-microspeck a person is compared
to the earth, or lets see, some bigger things.

Of course there are mysteries. Saying humans are
some way the ultimate is about as sensible as
spilling coffee, and announcing it is the worst thing
that ever happened. Going on about it would be
tiresome and then, weird.

And that's the mystery, right? How can something so small contain something so large? How can something so insignificant be so important? How can understanding myself lead to understanding everything?

But most important:

Is focusing on the mystery itself counter-productive?

 

[atanu]

And that's the mystery, right? How can something so small contain something so large? How can something so insignificant be so important? How can understanding myself lead to understanding everything?

But most important:

Is focusing on the mystery itself counter-productive?

You tell. I am eager to here and learn.

 

[Darkstorn]

For the purposes of context I need to ask, if I may, do you have ASD?

You don't need to ask that at all. You need to be more convincing yourself.

 

[ChristineM]

What logic.

Precisely, ask @Unguru what he actually meant

 

[Maximilian]

You don't need to ask that at all. You need to be more convincing yourself.

I ask because research shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

So if you do have ASD, sadly, there is absolutely nothing anyone could do to persuade you to recognize the reality of God's necessary existence.

 

[Darkstorn]

I ask because research shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

So if you do have ASD, sadly, there is absolutely nothing anyone could do to persuade you to recognize the reality of God's necessary existence.

That is a non-sequitur in that it has nothing to do with anything I discussed.

Furthermore, you're the one who feels the need to try to ask a silly question in the name of "context".

But the context is this: I corrected your false claim and you feel the need to try to insinuate that I have ASD.

You're both nonsensical and show a deep rooted inability to understand social norms and etiquette, as demonstrated by your lack of care for breaking the forum rules while trying to propagate your dogma.

Context demands me to notify you that antisocial or socially awkward behaviour is a sign of ASD.

I would never use that against your argument though. I used the thing that I did earlier instead. Your response:

"Waa Waa if you don't agree with me you have ASD".

/E: I should also mention that this is a debate forum. Why would it matter that you can't persuade me to abandon my religion(Buddhism) in favor of yours? If this is what you're doing, you should read the forum rules.