Can evolution be proven?.

[nextormento]

I can disprove the existance of an omnipotent being with one question that you cannot answer.

The paradox of the stone doesn't disprove existence, but limits the scope of understanding. (and not every god is omnipotent anyway)
That's why empirical falsification (Popper) is a thing.

[Deleted]

You're basing your entire argument on a rather fundamental and archaic form of religion. Most modern Christians will present to you a rather modernized and adapted form of Christianity (except in the US, of course, where fundamental Christianity still runs rampant).

Modern Christianity still fits the premise.

All religions are based on BELIEF. I refer u to my first post #2441

"Leap of Faith" is critical for all relgions. Its the point where someone ignores Empirical evidence and makes a decision to believe an ideology. That is exactly the same for old Christians as it is for modern Christians.

As i said... u see diversity within a religion as a good thing and scientists see it is a problem. There can only be one correct truth. All of them cannot be correct at the same time.

[Skulltaker]

It doesn't need to be testable if it's illogical, you just said you don't need to test logic. I can disprove the existance of an omnipotent being with one question that you cannot answer.

So, what you are saying is that God cannot be real as long as you cannot observe any impact he makes that is measurable. I'd say the Crusades are a very easy example to show that God is real. That doesn't mean that there is an omnipotent being sitting on a cloud stroking his beard eating Sanders's chicken, but the effect of God and Religion is easily observed. So, in a manner of speaking, god exists, and doesn't.

[Slant]

And still, you put faith in science aswell, even though you don't understand it one bit, everyday. You blindly trust it. The matter that proof exists - or doesn't - has little significance to most people. When you get into an elevator, oyu trust the science behind the engeneering completely not to kill you, while your common sense screams "you are getting onto a small cage above a 50 meter abyss! You're insane!" You get into a car that moves at 200 kph, and still, because you put faith in it your skills as a driver, the skills of the drivers around you, the workers and machines that assembled it.

I bet you that not even 10% of the people traveling by airplane have even the slightest grasp of how aviation actually works.

As a doctor, I experience blind faith every day. I talk to a patient and say 'take these pills' and fewer then 5 percent actually ask 'what do they do?'

Science is a religion in itself. Of course there are differences, but blind faith is by far not restricted to religion. And I also cannot prove the effects of most of the drugs to patients without them swallowing them, because most of them lack the understanding of the human body and basic chemistry necessary to understand what I am talking about.

Of course, Religion, as in established Religions, is different, but as long as you're not stupid and take it literally, it's very similar to science. It offers you an understanding of the universe and guidelines on how to be nice to each other. And the effect of science IS measuable. It afflicts millions of lives everyday, be it in a good or bad way.

As with science, you can, of course, twist it to make peoples lives miserable or to explain, with science, how some people are inferior and deserve to be destroyed.

Religion and science have been perverted and distorted by mankind for ages, and both have brought equal amounts of misery to the globe, usually because you won't get one without the other.

Dude, you don't need to understand science to use it. It's enough that scientists understand it. That's part of their job. Finding out how shit works and then dumbing it down so humanity profits. Don't even try to compare that to religion and "belief". Belief has nothing to do with scientists. The only thing they "believe" in is that something isn't 100% for certain until it has been unrefutably been proven. And perhaps that even that can be "updated" once you dive deeper into stuff. But unlike religion, scientists embrace criticism and the whole idea of "being wrong". They love that shit. That's what it's all about. Religion on the other hand has no alternative but the original idea. It's a blood good one in some cases, so why not hold on to it, but we're way past the point where you base every day life choices on religion.

[Surfd]

I dont think that is 100% correct, we have examples with global warming models and other cases where they are not unbiased because the 'data' has been skewed to only include that which will prove their theory.

In which case, they are the scientific equivilent of a Heretic. The neat part about that? They will be cought in their lie and exposed as a fraud fairly rapidly, as scientists love to cross-check eachothers work. The best part? It is pretty much impossible to "fake" science for very long, as the numbers will never lie when properly used (and THOUSANDS of other people will run those numbers to check their validity).

[Slant]

The paradox of the stone doesn't disprove existence, but limits the scope of understanding. (and not every god is omnipotent anyway)
That's why empirical falsification (Popper) is a thing.

If you're talking omnipotent being, that's where the argument is at. So now you get to cherrypick the type of god that needs to be disproven? Get the fuck outta here... :P

[Deleted]

I dont think that is 100% correct, we have examples with global warming models and other cases where they are not unbiased because the 'data' has been skewed to only include that which will prove their theory.

a theory by def. is an educated guess i think. most scientists are good and follow your statement, but with any human intervention , comes the error of biases which we all interject even maybe unknowing.. just my .02

There is still ONLY ONE TRUTH.

Yes there are scientists out there with different opinions, different experiments have demonstrated different conclusions. But ultimately there is only one truth on the subject. And i have confidence that through science we will come to the correct conclusion. This is a work in progress. Thats how science works.

[Slant]

So, what you are saying is that God cannot be real as long as you cannot observe any impact he makes that is measurable. I'd say the Crusades are a very easy example to show that God is real. That doesn't mean that there is an omnipotent being sitting on a cloud stroking his beard eating Sanders's chicken, but the effect of God and Religion is easily observed. So, in a manner of speaking, god exists, and doesn't.

The crusades are actually one of the few examples where I can easily point out how god had jack shit to do with it. It was all political and religion was used as a front to impress the feeble minded by very smart propagandists. Try better next time.

Oh and also, that was not what I was getting at.

If you accept logic and we're talking about an omnipotent god, answer me this: If an omnipotent being exists, can he create a stone that he cannot lift off the ground?

Simple as that. And *poof* god vanishes in a cloud of logic.

[Deleted]

That's exactly my point. They can co-exist. One doesn't rule out the other.

They can co-exist within society, yes... but ultimately only one of them is correct. There can only be one demonstrable hypothesis to explain the universe.

It cannot be correctly explained by both.

[Slant]

Modern Christianity still fits the premise.

All religions are based on BELIEF. I refer u to my first post #2441

"Leap of Faith" is critical for all relgions. Its the point where someone ignores Empirical evidence and makes a decision to believe an ideology. That is exactly the same for old Christians as it is for modern Christians.

As i said... u see diversity within a religion as a good thing and scientists see it is a problem. There can only be one correct truth. All of them cannot be correct at the same time.

And religion and science do not overlap. The whole plane of debate is incompatible between those two (as opposed to they themselves being incompatible, important distinction here). Science talks about logic, arguments, proofs, theories... that's all about the "how do we know what we know" where religion doesn't really give a shit, it's all about the "what we know". The whole debate is really just two big groups of idiots talking past each other without once finding a common base for debate. Not once in the history of mankind. Galilei was the biggest example of the biggest misunderstanding in the universe. His realisation of the planets? To him it was proof that god was even much cooler than the Vatican thought it was. To them? He was doubting the entire belief system. Ridiculous and one of the most tragic figures in the history of science. All because people invent conflict where there is none.

[nacixems]

There is still ONLY ONE TRUTH.

Yes there are scientists out there with different opinions, different experiments have demonstrated different conclusions. But ultimately there is only one truth on the subject. And i have confidence that through science we will come to the correct conclusion. This is a work in progress. Thats how science works.

I agree, work in progress.

[Slant]

They can co-exist within society, yes... but ultimately only one of them is correct. There can only be one demonstrable hypothesis to explain the universe.

It cannot be correctly explained by both.

That's the thing, though. Religion doesn't need to be correct. It just needs to be believed in. It's inherently irrational in its construction and trying to logic your way into delegitimising it really is a futile exercise.

[Skulltaker]

Except that that bit right there, is the heart of what makes certain religions nothing more then a giant crutch. Why worry about anything, why question anything, when all knowing, all mighty, infallible god has everything accounted for in his mysterious plan? It is literally the biggest copout in the history of history, a monumental security blanket for the weak minded to turn to when they dont get an answer they like to the question that is life.

So, you have a problem with people not wanting to be afraif of the void that awaits us after death and beginning to understand that our existence as an individual is completly pointless and meaningless, and instead have them a life at peace?

Dude, you don't need to understand science to use it. It's enough that scientists understand it. That's part of their job. Finding out how shit works and then dumbing it down so humanity profits. Don't even try to compare that to religion and "belief". Belief has nothing to do with scientists. The only thing they "believe" in is that something isn't 100% for certain until it has been unrefutably been proven. And perhaps that even that can be "updated" once you dive deeper into stuff. But unlike religion, scientists embrace criticism and the whole idea of "being wrong". They love that shit. That's what it's all about. Religion on the other hand has no alternative but the original idea. It's a blood good one in some cases, so why not hold on to it, but we're way past the point where you base every day life choices on religion.

But belief has a lot to do with science. And science has also no other option as to believe that there is a scientific proof for everything. It is based on the yet to be proved assumtion that it knows the answers to every single question that can be asked about the workings of the universe. While it works in itself and proves itself, just as with god, you cannot possibly prove that it is corrects.

And no. We are not past religion in any way. We have just replaced it with a god that is a little more logical. Again. All big decisions in the world are based on scientific facts, without those who make the decisions actually grasping those concepts at the slightest. We just exchanged robes for labcoats.

[Deathquoi]

The philosophies behind science and religion are incompatible. Science says believe things based on evidence, religion says believe things because ancient texts/traditions says to believe them. This switch in philosophies, which we take for granted today, was what got the Scientific Revolution off the ground after 1572.

http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Scie.../dp/006175952X

No, that's patently untrue.

[Skulltaker]

The crusades are actually one of the few examples where I can easily point out how god had jack shit to do with it. It was all political and religion was used as a front to impress the feeble minded by very smart propagandists. Try better next time.

Oh and also, that was not what I was getting at.

If you accept logic and we're talking about an omnipotent god, answer me this: If an omnipotent being exists, can he create a stone that he cannot lift off the ground?

And today it is science that is used for politics, so what has changed? Nothing at all. Ideas have always been misused. It doesn't matter if you dnagle god in front of the feeble masses, or any other form of belief.

And you actually make a really good religious fanatic. You defend your faith without accepting the fact that it could be wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the thing, though. Religion doesn't need to be correct. It just needs to be believed in. It's inherently irrational in its construction and trying to logic your way into delegitimising it really is a futile exercise.

The same is true for science. People are willing to believe in the supriority of their genes and go to war for it. Doesn't make it true.

[Slant]

But belief has a lot to do with science. And science has also no other option as to believe that there is a scientific proof for everything. It is based on the yet to be proved assumtion that it knows the answers to every single question that can be asked about the workings of the universe. While it works in itself and proves itself, just as with god, you cannot possibly prove that it is corrects.

And no. We are not past religion in any way. We have just replaced it with a god that is a little more logical. Again. All big decisions in the world are based on scientific facts, without those who make the decisions actually grasping those concepts at the slightest. We just exchanged robes for labcoats.

Belief has nothing to do with science. Nothing at all. And science doesn't need to believe that there is a scientific proof for everything. They just need to give it a good shot. What they're saying and what religious people don't understand is that just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means science is not good enough, yet. That's the entire point of their thinking, to expand science, to find ways to prove things that we hadn't thought possible just 100 or heck, just 20 years ago.

And science doesn't even claim the monopoly on answering everything. They just claim the monopoly on trying to answer everything conclusively so humans can understand it. Why do you think all big decisions are based on scientific fact? It's because that is the simplest way to understand complex things that we're not comfortable just "gut feeling" it. The Bible doesn'T tell you where you are lost in the desert and how to get out. The GPS system does that just fine.

If you think science is another form of religion, you clearly haven't thought hard enough about life, yet.

[Surfd]

So, what you are saying is that God cannot be real as long as you cannot observe any impact he makes that is measurable. I'd say the Crusades are a very easy example to show that God is real. That doesn't mean that there is an omnipotent being sitting on a cloud stroking his beard eating Sanders's chicken, but the effect of God and Religion is easily observed. So, in a manner of speaking, god exists, and doesn't.

Umm, that is quite literally the most rediculous arguement I have ever heard. That does not, in any way, shape or form, validate the existance of "god". It validates the power behind the "idea" of god. Not the same thing at all. Because if, by that logic, god can be said to exist, then that same logic also simultaneously validates the existance of every single other "god" that has ever been imagined.

The crusades are proof that god exists because armies moved in the name of god? Ok, Zeuss also exists, because temples were built in his name. All the Eggyptian gods? Yep, they exist too. Lots of physical evidence of things built / done in their names. Myan, Roman, Babylonian, Indian, Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, you name it, all those gods exist also. Lest we forget modern times, Whatevver crazy shit the Sccientologists believe in is also true, seeing as millions of dollars have been spent erecting places the scientologists do the things they do at.

You can't point to the power of a belief as proof that the tenants that the belief are based on are sound........

[nextormento]

If you're talking omnipotent being, that's where the argument is at. So now you get to cherrypick the type of god that needs to be disproven? Get the fuck outta here... :P

Heh.
No need to cherrypick gods; it's just an addendum to acknowledge that there's still a lot more to unpack than omnipotence. (and, as another detour, there's also kinds of omnipotence...)
Aquinas addressed omnipotence already a few centuries ago, though. Through limiting the scope:
omnipotence, for then, doesn't require gods be able to do anything, but only things in accord to their nature. That rules out gods performing logical inconsistencies.

Similar to the paradox of the stone, we have the immovable object vs the unstoppable force. We've never ruled out any of the two, but we've come to terms that they can't coexist in the same consistent reality. Coexistence is the limit.

At any rate, I don't think the merit of the exercise is in proving or disproving anything. It's always limiting the scope (be it to promote science, religion, or w/e). That is important.
Popper's response, in this area is falsiability: claims need be able to be empirically ruled out for them to be of worth.

In this exchange you're arguing some version of compatibility of science and religion. And that's all right. They don't need to be pitted against on every aspect. But it is important to abstract which lines of thought they take divergent -incompatible- turns. Not because we need a winner, but because the exploration gives insight into their procedures.

[Skulltaker]

They just need to give it a good shot. What they're saying and what religious people don't understand is that just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Isn't that a very religious premise?

And yes. Science is a form of religion. As you said, all important decisions are based on it. Wether the facts are true, or not, only matters in principle, not for the outcome. At all.

[Deleted]

The whole debate is really just two big groups of idiots talking past each other without once finding a common base for debate. Not once in the history of mankind.

You say this as if there SHOULD be grounds for discussion.

There shouldnt.

The two camps are so diametrically opposed to one another that there is literally next to nowhere they can co-exist on the same page.

The problem is people... it upsets people to think that they cannot enjoy both religion and science. Basicially, emotions. The facts dictate that they are both opposed to each other, this is logically obvious regarding how the universe was created. The brutal unpalletable truth is that both cannot be correct at the same time.