A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: edmc^2

Gravity and lots of time.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Woodcarver

If people made more decisions based on a reasonable view of the world, there would be a lot less room for corruption and crime, people would be fed and sheltered properly, pollution and environmental waste would no longer be an issue. racism, sexism, And religious differences would no longer be a thing. Technology could be used to help us instead of spy on us and poison us. People would no longer be able to shirk their responsibilities onto a nonexistent God. They Would actually be forced to realize that they need to take action to change their environment and

Clearly you hold quite a few beliefs yourself. Have you considered that in all this?

I’m pretty sure everyone has beliefs, but i find it important to believe as many true things as possible and to discount as many false claims as possible. Can you find any fault with that? Would you like to tell me which beliefs i have that are unprovable? Because that is what we are discussing right?

If you believe in something which is true, it isn’t a belief, it’s a fact.

So which beliefs do you have that are unprovable? Well all of them as per the definition of the word Belief .

As an example, when a mechanic fixes your car do you go over the process they carried out in fine detail to verify everything they have done is correct and they are being entirely honest with you? Or do you have faith in their ability and honesty? If not how do you choose a mechanic? By their qualifications? That doesn’t mean they are either honest or skilled.. However you choose at some point the decision requires a degree of faith in them on your part. We can’t know everything and that’s where belief and trust comes in. We wouldn’t get very far without it actually.

Where did you get the idea that people shirk there responsibilities onto their faith in god and hence all the problems in the world? As if that is somehow the reason for all the crime and pollution etc.. Really? If anything it’s the opposite. You know what the seven deadly sins are right? They are the cause of the problems in the world.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

If you believe in something which is true, it isn’t a belief, it’s a fact.

Sometimes I wonder to myself things such as:

Do some of you actually notice that what one is saying may sound rather contradictory to the reader? I take it that often one isn't noticing that one is presenting a contradiction otherwise why would one present it in all seriousness? So I'm not really wondering if the one presenting the contradiction is noticing it, allthough in some more rare cases it may be deliberate to spread misinformation and assist in creating a particular way of thinking in people about certain subjects such as "belief/faith" (I think it's more likely that those posting contradictions here have been inadvertently affected by these types that are often in it for the easy money). If you believe in something which is true, you still have a belief (otherwise the verb "believe" wouldn't have applied, it's just that your belief matches reality, the fact of the matter, you got it right). The latter part of your statement is true/correct, without error. If you believe in something that is true, that thing is a fact or a set of facts, let's just go with "factual" to keep it general; which doesn't negate one having a belief, the 2 are not incompatible. You have perhaps fallen for something that is a bit similar to a false dichotomy that the media and this system of things likes to promote regarding the subject "belief/faith" (which are synonyms as used in that sentence), in particular atheistic and agnostic sources like Dawkins, Hitchens, deGrasse-Tyson, Krauss, etc (but also religious teachers that rely on the gullibility of those having blind faith and trust in their reliability and honesty, falsely presented as faith or falsely presented as* revealed to them by holy spirit, divine inspiration or spiritual enlightenment). That clique of people in it for the money and getting their money by tickling people's ears, telling them what they want to hear and what pleases them, what entertains them, what intrigues them, what makes them feel smart about themselves. *: or taught in such a way that their audience will begin to believe it was revealed to them by holy spirit, divine inspiration, or that they are spiritually illuminated/enlightened for thinking it's right or has some merit, whatever they are told or taught.

a reply to: whereislogic

What was your point in all that exactly, to point out beliefs and facts aren’t necessarily mutually incompatible? True but they aren’t the same thing either. If I say I believe such and such to be true, it has a very different meaning from I know such and such to be true. Does it not? Beliefs can be completely non factual too, that is why we must distinguish the difference. If someone knows something they believe to be factual, they should say they know it, not they believe it.

I was trying to point out to Woodcarver that faith and beliefs of themselves aren’t necessarily bad things, infact they are necessary in the functioning of our society. We can’t know everything for ourselves and so at some point we must trust and believe the word of others. How we know to trust them or not is another matter. For example How much scientific data do you personally peer review to make sure it’s correct? Or do you trust the experts in the field to inform you?

I’m aware of religious indoctrination and don’t agree with it whatsoever. But how’s about looking at what religions on the whole actually say when it comes to morality. There’s nothing condoning being racist, committing crimes, polluting the environment or other problems which beset humanity as Woodcarver seems to have it.

If you want a clearer understanding of where I’m coming from in all this click on my profile and read my posts in this topic. Otherwise I’ve no interest in talking with people dissecting my posts, ignoring most of my points, nit picking over smaller details and perhaps suggesting I’m here to spread misinformation.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: whereislogic

For example How much scientific data do you personally peer review to make sure it’s correct? Or do you trust the experts in the field to inform you?

I generally use Newton's technique when confronted with new information. Which boils down to, if I don't understand it in a manner that I'm sure/certain of it (or can't recognize the reason behind it or am noticing some glaring flaws in the logic of the arguments, such as the use of propaganda techniques to tickle people's ears, which includes the use of half-truths and twisting facts to make it appear that it supports an argument or position), I won't believe it. Newton got this advice from the bible:

1 Thess 5:21 (off the top of my head)

Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine.

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. - Isaac Newton

Initially my comment centered around the question:

Do some of you actually notice that what one is saying may sound rather contradictory to the reader?

So did you regarding the phrase I responded to? Or do you now? It was a little weird to use the verb "believe" just before saying "it isn't a belief" wasn't it? Or am I the only one noticing such things right away? I run into them so much on ATS, I was beginning to wonder the above question. Just that it "may sound rather contradictory to the reader"? Especially after it's been pointed out?

I wasn't making suggestions. And responding to the first line in your comment with that question isn't really dissecting either. Just wondering out loud about the first point in your comment.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Why hold personal beliefs that do not mesh with reality? What is the benefit? How is it better than holding beliefs that do fit with reality?

That's what makes beliefs beliefs. The fact that they are speculative or don't fit reality. If it fit with reality there would be no belief required, it would be knowledge. Nobody says they believe in the moon or the sun or planet Venus. It's not about beliefs being considered better than reality. It's about understanding how to treat personal beliefs, and how to treat empirical facts. What's the detriment in believing something if you treat it like the faith based possibility it is, instead of as fact, especially if you just treat it like a gut feeling.

originally posted by: whereislogic
(off the top of my head)

Seems like you went with a gut feeling there. Talk about not noticing "what one is saying may sound rather contradictory to the reader"

a reply to: edmc^2

The whole premise on which this is based, "Everything that has a beginning has a cause", is quite the assumption...

Especially given that quantum physics has demonstrated break downs of the causal principle. Events do not necessarily have a cause in quantum physics, only probabilities....

A2D

a reply to: edmc^2

There is "no cause"

a reply to: whereislogic

So did you regarding the phrase I responded to? Or do you now? It was a little weird to use the verb "believe" just before saying "it isn't a belief" wasn't it? Or am I the only one noticing such things right away? I run into them so much on ATS

Ok I see what you’re saying with regards to my first comment which was.

If you believe in something which is true, it isn’t a belief, it’s a fact.

Which isn’t entirely correct your right. I could have worded it better such as.

If you believe in something which is true, and you know that to be the case, it’s no longer a belief, it’s a fact.

Is that still contradictory? It’s funny how leaving out, or adding just a few words in one sentence can alter the meaning. As you bring up propaganda and misinformation, yes the worlds full of it, so is ATS, but at least here we can debate each other and attempt to discern the truth. Where as there’s no debating the TV Programming of the MSM, where most people pick up their so called facts...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: edmc^2

The whole premise on which this is based, "Everything that has a beginning has a cause", is quite the assumption...

Especially given that quantum physics has demonstrated break downs of the causal principle. Events do not necessarily have a cause in quantum physics, only probabilities....

A2D

Probabilities are calculated, in part, by the observation of causality and inductive reasoning.

a reply to: surfer_soul
Yeah, I'm sorry but that still sounds contradictory to me. Not sure why I'm apologizing for that though.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I beg your pardon? I've held this set of beliefs for the last 30 odd years. Yes it evolves the more I learn, the more I experience.

It is very clear you don't understand spirituality. You keep trying to make it something that has to be proven through the scientific method. That would your view similar to creationsits, who expect science to conform to their revealed religion.

Faith and science are separate beasts, and can actually co-exist with out conflict. Like I said, I work as a scientist (Process Development in the Pharmaceutical industry and the odd Bioinformatics project in my personal business).

a reply to: Woodcarver

Kiddo, you don't get it, I cant quantify it, I can't measure it. However to exclude it as a possibility, would mean I would have to be able to measure things that are not part of the physical world.

So try this again. If you are being honest you have to admit it is a possibility, just as I admit I could be wrong.

a reply to: Woodcarver

No you are being hostile. You are not willing to engage, or answer questions. You demand i do, yet miss your cues to answer when asked. I have answered your questions. It is now your turn.

Slan leat (don't let the door hit you on the way out)

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't care about parts...I care about wholes...and as a whole the field of quantum mechanics does not agree with the causal principle.

If you agree with "everything that has a beginning has a cause" then you disagree with a large portion of what we know about quantum mechanics... I'm not here to argue....just stating the facts.

A2D

edmc^2:

...there is such "thing" as infinity - as in infinite space.

Like I said, there's no mystery, only misunderstanding, and you plainly show how much you both misconceive concepts and misunderstand them.

Firstly, you are treating infinity as if it were a real existence, it isn't, it is merely an abstract. Equally, space itself is an abstract, made quantifiable (to a limited degree) by the content inside it, i.e, all the the galaxies, all the stars, and the planets and all the debris. It is all these things by which we are able to experience and comprehend the notion of space.

You can equally apply this to the room in which you sit. Firstly it is bounded by walls and a ceiling, so the space inside your room you know is definitely finite. Yet also, there is content in your room, yourself, a bed perhaps, a table, a chair, etc. By these thing you are able to comprehend the spatiality of the space in your room.

If there were no boundaries and no content, you would be unable to have any notion or experience of space and spatiality. However, the only real non-abstract elements in the space of the universe, or the space in your room, is the content in them.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't care about parts...I care about wholes...and as a whole the field of quantum mechanics does not agree with the causal principle.

If you agree with "everything that has a beginning has a cause" then you disagree with a large portion of what we know about quantum mechanics... I'm not here to argue....just stating the facts.

A2D

No one comes to these threads to do anything but argue. Unless this post is a one off. Because no one here is actually interested in changing their mind.

And no one understands quantum mechanics, even the people paid to study and talk about it. It's a very theoretical field of research, moreso than gravity or evolution. It's gonna be a while before we nail down anything practical.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
edmc^2:

...there is such "thing" as infinity - as in infinite space.

Like I said, there's no mystery, only misunderstanding, and you plainly show how much you both misconceive concepts and misunderstand them.

Firstly, you are treating infinity as if it were a real existence, it isn't, it is merely an abstract. Equally, space itself is an abstract, made quantifiable (to a limited degree) by the content inside it, i.e, all the the galaxies, all the stars, and the planets and all the debris. It is all these things by which we are able to experience and comprehend the notion of space.

You can equally apply this to the room in which you sit. Firstly it is bounded by walls and a ceiling, so the space inside your room you know is definitely finite. Yet also, there is content in your room, yourself, a bed perhaps, a table, a chair, etc. By these thing you are able to comprehend the spatiality of the space in your room.

If there were no boundaries and no content, you would be unable to have any notion or experience of space and spatiality. However, the only real non-abstract elements in the space of the universe, or the space in your room, is the content in them.

So what's outside the "boundaries" (of the walls/ceilings) then if infinite space doesn't exist? i.e. what's outside the "boundary / boundaries" of the universe?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: elysiumfire
edmc^2:

...there is such "thing" as infinity - as in infinite space.

Like I said, there's no mystery, only misunderstanding, and you plainly show how much you both misconceive concepts and misunderstand them.

Firstly, you are treating infinity as if it were a real existence, it isn't, it is merely an abstract. Equally, space itself is an abstract, made quantifiable (to a limited degree) by the content inside it, i.e, all the the galaxies, all the stars, and the planets and all the debris. It is all these things by which we are able to experience and comprehend the notion of space.

You can equally apply this to the room in which you sit. Firstly it is bounded by walls and a ceiling, so the space inside your room you know is definitely finite. Yet also, there is content in your room, yourself, a bed perhaps, a table, a chair, etc. By these thing you are able to comprehend the spatiality of the space in your room.

If there were no boundaries and no content, you would be unable to have any notion or experience of space and spatiality. However, the only real non-abstract elements in the space of the universe, or the space in your room, is the content in them.

So what's outside the "boundaries" (of the walls/ceilings) then if infinite space doesn't exist? i.e. what's outside the "boundary / boundaries" of the universe?

show us what is outside the boundaries of the universe then. show us measurements, pictures, something other than speculation and hypotheticals.