[Good bloke]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
I agree with your post entirely although I don't think we need this thread to become another one about what evidence there is for God and souls etc.

The only point I was making is that the statement about not eating pork would be a statement of knowledge if there is a justifiable reason for believing it to be true. And yet the same statement cannot be made using only the scientific method and observation. py0alb would dismiss this possibility because he would say that the only true statements are those that are justified through the scientific method and observation. But then his challenge to find a religious statement of knowledge that cannot be found through science is completely empty.

Perhaps you can give us an example of a religious statement of knowledge that isn't scientifically proven and we can progress from there.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Good bloke)
You really don't read very closely, do you? Darwin's book was called On the Origin of Species, not Life. Evolution theory says nothing about the origin of life.

But you should read my previous post on that subject to understand why you are wrong.

I'll answer your question with a question (and no, but I accept your point of correction) - so by your logic, if an event - that is highly unlikely - can occur once it can go for many, many times until you achieve a multiplier effect of processes all origninating from that one that got it right (right in the sense that it was life)?

[-Liberty]

(Original post by freakymonkey)
Not entirely convinced that's true. Don't know enough about the Quran, but the Bible says the Earth is flat in Isaiah 40:22 and implies the same in Revelations 7:1 and Luke 4:5. If you can tell me, chapter and verse, where the bible says the Earth is spherical then I shall happily admit to being wrong

I did something about this for an assembly, the compatibility of science and religion. But I don't know much about the Bible. In Issiah as well they imply the world was circular, in direct translation from Hebrew this actually meant spherical and they mentioned earth was suspended in space. I didn't research the space thing much but you can check that out yourself. It's really interesting when you consider how much of the original Bible has been twisted and omitted due to translations.

Anyway the Quran thing, again, I don't know much about it but it had something to do with the circumcision of young boys. I don't remember too much about it tbh.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Perhaps you can give us an example of a religious statement of knowledge that isn't scientifically proven and we can progress from there.

You seem to be arguing from a basic premise that scientific proof allows humanity to obtain any and all possible knowledge. This is false. In fact, this basis is rejected outright by the religious, I can assure if humanity could obtain all its knowledge using science alone, this renders Divine revelation surplus to requirements. One of the reasons of Divine revelation is to tell us what we don't know, and can't readily find out.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Eh? What have these fictional souls to do with the chances of life being created?

Fictional souls? Please don't disregard my point completely and attribute the term "fictional" to it. If souls exist then it would go forth to prove that a transedent, immaterial entity can exist (just because you can't percieve it as real doesn't mean that it does not exist - not everyhting has to have empiricil proof)...

[Good bloke]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
I'll answer your question with a question (and no, but I accept your point of correction) - so by your logic, if an event - that is highly unlikely - can occur once it can go for many, many times until you achieve a multiplier effect of processes all origninating from that one that got it right (right in the sense that it was life)?

Let's keep the principle simple and assume there are six planets, each with a man throwing a die. If he gets a six, that represents life starting on that planet. The odds of life on any individual planet are low (only 1 in 6) but the chances of life starting somewhere are very high indeed - about 2 in 3. The more planets you add, the higher the chance of life forming.

[py0alb]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
Actually this statement is completely different to your original one which was that these nuggets of truth must NOT be also available through science. And since you are defining knowledge (using the common technical definition if you like) as being something that is available through science your argument is empty.

If on the other hand you are simply looking for true statements of knowledge in religious books then you can find plenty.

Again, it is perfectly conceivable that one of the many world religions may come up with some insight, some piece of knowledge, that modern science may have overlooked. Is this insight not the entire point of religion? Is this not a claim they repeatedly make for themselves?

Just because something can be observed in the real world does not mean that modern scientists have a monopoly on discovering it. You are conflating science with the scientific method, which is inaccurate. All rational thinkers use a microscale version of the scientific method on a minute by minute basis.

[YahRah]

I don't even think logic existed when those angry, sex-starved monks wrote the bible a few thousand years ago.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by noisy06)
You seem to be arguing from a basic premise that scientific proof allows humanity to obtain any and all possible knowledge. This is false. In fact, this basis is rejected outright by the religious, I can assure if humanity could obtain all its knowledge using science alone, this renders Divine revelation surplus to requirements. One of the reasons of Divine revelation is to tell us what we don't know, and can't readily find out.

How convenient for the religious! You must be able to see why the rest of us are unconvinced, surely? Divine revelation appears to be available only to the religious and tells us something only the religious believe. But to benefit from it you have to throw away all your reasoning abilities.

In any event, I am not arguing at all, on this subject. I am seeking to understand UoL's argument.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
You're probably right about the nucliec acids (which are used as "blueprints" for the construction of proteins from animo acids) but you have to admit, the chances of such occuring by chance (by that I'm referring to the very first life form) is very low (life, earth, water, the solar system etc...). I'm not going to completely dismiss your point, but the chance in a billion (It's an a priori estimate) odds are really making me sceptical in light of what I've read so far...

One chance in a billion is a high chance in universal terms, there are far more than 1 billion planets, and only one needs to be right for life to develop there. Also remember there is a far broader range of conditions that could support life than is commonly realised- life on earth survives in so many conditions including near-boiling water at the bottom of the sea, acidic mud and freezing ice! It's ironic that you're sceptical about the origins of life (which is good! We (scientists) are sceptical about everything we think we know including our own research!) but you accept religion

As a matter of fact, by the laws of entropy, life is thermodynamically favourable (i.e. increases the disorder of the universe), so given the correct conditions which are not so unlikely, life is almost predetermined to develop. Have you read "The Selfish Gene"? It's a very approachable popular science book about a modern interpretation of gene-based evolution, and the first few chapters do a great job explaining how life may have developed in a set of many simple steps. It is a Richard Dawkins creation but don't be put off by the nature of his atheism-it's not a book about religion at all.

The whole process of evolution is based on the accumulation of small changes which are not individually unlikely, over a long period of time, so that as a net result something very unlikely is able to form. Hence arguments about probability surrounding evolution are pretty weak constructions.

(The only way chance really applies to evolution is in the formation of the initial source of life, but that's not actually part of evolution, which is only concerned with what happens after life develops, and I'm afraid that the evidence for an evolutionary process is not deniable.)

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Perhaps you can give us an example of a religious statement of knowledge that isn't scientifically proven and we can progress from there.

How about the first part of the 10 commandments:
I am the Lord God who took you (the Israelites) out of Egypt.

Clearly we both agree that this statement cannot be made by science or observation. But an Israelite having just come out of Egypt, having witnessed miracles and is now experiencing God tell him that it was God who took him out would be justified in his belief that the statement is true.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Good bloke)
But to benefit from it you have to throw away all your reasoning abilities.

I don't understand what you mean by "convenient", I would call it "obvious". That's an unsubstantiated claim right there.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
How about the first part of the 10 commandments:
I am the Lord God who took you (the Israelites) out of Egypt.

Clearly we both agree that this statement cannot be made by science or observation. But an Israelite having just come out of Egypt, having witnessed miracles and is now experiencing God tell him that it was God who took him out would be justified in his belief that the statement is true.

I don't think so. It could easily have been another god, or an Israelite leader, who was responsible for the escape and this god is making a false claim. Do you not expect to sceptically (or scientifically) examine claims made in an effort to gain your favour? Or do you fall prey to any con man who happens along? I suspect it is the latter.

If someone came to you in the street and told you that one of three upside-down cups covered a coin, would that make the existence of that coin a fact (knowledge) or a claim still to be justified? Surely it must be the latter? Especially in the light of such claims being predominately false.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by py0alb)
Again, it is perfectly conceivable that one of the many world religions may come up with some insight, some piece of knowledge, that modern science may have overlooked. Is this insight not the entire point of religion? Is this not a claim they repeatedly make for themselves?

Just because something can be observed in the real world does not mean that modern scientists have a monopoly on discovering it. You are conflating science with the scientific method, which is inaccurate. All rational thinkers use a microscale version of the scientific method on a minute by minute basis.

This is getting stupid. OK then, pork is bad for you is a true religious statement made by a religion that science hasn't discovered yet. Happy? I'll contend that science has not yet found the reason for why pork is bad. Now you cannot possibly ever disprove my statement.

Allow me, though, to take you back to your original statement which I took issue with:
"What has your religion taught you than (sic) science and secular morality would not have done?"

If we take this as a simple question then there are plenty such things, including not to eat pork.

However, you meant to ask "what observable facts has religion taught that observation cannot teach" which is clearly a stupid and empty question.

[py0alb]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
How about the first part of the 10 commandments:
I am the Lord God who took you (the Israelites) out of Egypt.

Clearly we both agree that this statement cannot be made by science or observation. But an Israelite having just come out of Egypt, having witnessed miracles and is now experiencing God tell him that it was God who took him out would be justified in his belief that the statement is true.

Gandalf: They are one; the ring and the Dark Lord. Frodo, he must never find it.

Clearly we both agree that this statement cannot be made by science or observation. But for Frodo having just come out of Mordor, having witnessed miracles and is now experiencing Gandalf tell him that it was Gandalf who took him out would be justified in his belief that the statement is true.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Good bloke)
I don't think so. It could easily have been another god, or an Israelite leader, who was responsible for the escape and this god is making a false claim. Do you not expect to sceptically (or scientifically) examine claims made in an effort to gain your favour? Or do you fall prey to any con man who happens along? I suspect it is the latter.

If someone came to you in the street and told you that one of three upside-down cups covered a coin, would that make the existence of that coin a fact (knowledge) or a claim still to be justified? Surely it must be the latter? Especially in the light of such claims being predominately false.

Well, firstly the Israelites saw God splitting the sea for them.

But more importantly, why doesn't your line of reasoning here prevent everyone from believing anything they are told by anyone?

[noisy06]

(Original post by py0alb)
Gandalf: They are one; the ring and the Dark Lord. Frodo, he must never find it.

Clearly we both agree that this statement cannot be made by science or observation. But for Frodo having just come out of Mordor, having witnessed miracles and is now experiencing Gandalf tell him that it was Gandalf who took him out would be justified in his belief that the statement is true.

Has the author of the work ever claimed it is a book of fact or a statement of fact? I don't think so.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by noisy06)
I don't understand what you mean by "convenient", I would call it "obvious". That's an unsubstantiated claim right there.

Religion is all about the imposition of the will of a few on the many. If few have been called and have hidden, unproveable knowledge revealed to them by an invisible entity, and they can persuade the masses that this is true, then they are in a position of enormous power. Such divine revelation is very convenient to those seeking power in this way.

It is only in the era of modern science and social revolution that the masses have begun to question the power and basis of religions, and on TSR you can easily see how the current young generation is taking this new thinking on religion to its heart. A massively greater proportion of it is atheist compared to the preceding generation and this acceleration of atheism is likely to overwhelm religion by the end of this century, at least in the west.

[py0alb]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
This is getting stupid. OK then, pork is bad for you is a true religious statement made by a religion that science hasn't discovered yet. Happy? I'll contend that science has not yet found the reason for why pork is bad. Now you cannot possibly ever disprove my statement.

Allow me, though, to take you back to your original statement which I took issue with:
"What has your religion taught you than (sic) science and secular morality would not have done?"

If we take this as a simple question then there are plenty such things, including not to eat pork.

However, you meant to ask "what observable facts has religion taught that observation cannot teach" which is clearly a stupid and empty question.

To teach is to pass on knowledge. Your claim about pork may or may not turn out to be true, but it is most certainly not knowledge. Therefore nothing was taught.

Try again. Or on the other hand, don't bother, because you're wasting everyone's time with your inane and easily dismissed posts. You're getting tiresomely repetitive now.

[py0alb]

(Original post by noisy06)
Has the author of the work ever claimed it is a book of fact or a statement of fact? I don't think so.

Has the author of the bible?