Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    I'll give you that one. Although it does seem that faith is a certain type of trust. Trust being the umbrella term.
    Yeh, don't worry though. Its becoming very common for people to try and redefine it without any allusions to trust. Not sure why.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    God is 'outside of the box' with regards to our thinking about who and what He is.
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

    What I mean is we are mind, body and spirit, not just body.
    You're making a lot of scientifically incorrect assertions here without any justifications for them whatsoever. If you don't know about human biology don't try to debate it with biologists. Like I've told you before in previous threads, you're only squirting egg on your face.

    We are clusters of various kinds of highly specialized cells. Those cells are clusters of macro-molecules and simple molecules dissolved in water or forming solid structures around the outside of the cell. Those molecules are essentially clusters of atoms. That's all there is to us. We're just a big lump of atoms. Spirit is an idea which has nothing to back it up, and the mind is just a load of electrical impulses being fired in the brain (in the simplest sense at least).

    I'm no biologist - I'm a chemical physicist so I won't pretend to be an expert on this either, but you can show that the idea of a 'spirit' is bogus just from using logic. You don't even need to know any biology to do that.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    How is it misleading when both the simple and full definitions state faith is a type of trust?
    Type of trust, not simply "trust in something" as you initially said.

    And your point wasn't consistent, if faith is different to trust then why are you describing it synonymously with tentative and Conditional trust?
    Because, again, the type of trust where faith typically goes (complete, certain, especially without evidence or proof) is very different to the type of trust we put in other things that is based on evidence, being conditional on the veracity of the evidence and therefore tentative and not absolutely fixed. This is the point. They are complete opposites in that regard.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascend)
    Type of trust, not simply "trust in something" as you initially said.


    Because, again, the type of trust where faith typically goes (complete, certain, especially without evidence or proof) is very different to the type of trust we put in other things that is based on evidence, being conditional on the veracity of the evidence and therefore tentative and not absolutely fixed. This is the point. They are complete opposites in that regard.
    A lot of religious people do claim to have proof or evidence of some sort. The other day I seen someone in the I-Soc state, after seeing a verse of the Quran, state how they cannot fathom how one could read the Quran and not believe it to be the word of God. For them, the Quran is proof that God exists. Others may talk of being touched by the Holy Spirit or some such event.

    Ultimately though, maybe you might disagree with me here, I don't believe in doxastic voluntarism. I don't believe one can make themselves believe in something without evidence. For example, most kids will generally believe Santa does exist. They have quite good reason to believe this. Why would their parents lie? How is it they receive a present from Santa every year? Who eats the cookies and drinks the milk that is left out on Christmas eve? Maybe they have even seen Santa. So kids obviously don't believe in Santa for no reason.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    A lot of religious people do claim to have proof or evidence of some sort. The other day I seen someone in the I-Soc state, after seeing a verse of the Quran, state how they cannot fathom how one could read the Quran and not believe it to be the word of God. For them, the Quran is proof that God exists. Others may talk of being touched by the Holy Spirit or some such event.

    Ultimately though, maybe you might disagree with me here, I don't believe in doxastic voluntarism. I don't believe one can make themselves believe in something without evidence. For example, most kids will generally believe Santa does exist. They have quite good reason to believe this. Why would their parents lie? How is it they receive a present from Santa every year? Who eats the cookies and drinks the milk that is left out on Christmas eve? Maybe they have even seen Santa. So kids obviously don't believe in Santa for no reason.
    Maybe so but faith is so very often proclaimed for the "unseen" and that for which is there no conventional (or a much lower standard of) evidence or proof (it's defined as such not without reason). More to the point, the faithful tend to double down and make this trust complete with absolute certainty. Ask them what would shake their faith and more times than not they will say that nothing would. Again, my point is that this is vastly different to, say, a tentative trust in a certain scientific theory where there will always be an element of uncertainty pending new evidence or experiments that might alter or even disprove it. Or a trust for a partner who has demonstrated commitment for years or even decades yet we can't rule out the possibility of his or her unfaithfulness in the future.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRealLifeBane)
    How on Earth was I an atheist?!?!?!

    It is simply illogical.
    How is lacking a belief in something for which there is no evidence illogical?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRealLifeBane)
    How on Earth was I an atheist?!?!?!

    It is simply illogical.
    "I don't believe in colour" said the blind man.

    Is the blind man being rational or irrational here?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    How very convenient.

    Also, the mind and the spirit are the result of brainpower. Software, if you will. Contained within our brain. We are in fact just body.
    You do not know that for sure. This is an assumption.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    This is for those of faith who want to ask atheists on TSR anything about Atheism, why they don't believe etc. You can ask anything you want, just be polite
    POLITE debate is encouraged.

    Thanks
    Why the interest in faith and spirituality?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I don't know if you are aware of what recently happened to Richard Dawkins. It was despicable. There is a cancer in the atheism community.
    And the church actually said they'd 'pray for him'!! How absolutely disrespectful knowing this man is so against their beliefs to a point where his life's aim is to disprove them. I believe it was a passive aggressive dig by the church. Exactly the sort of petty thing they'd do and disguise it as a moral act.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC1996)
    And the church actually said they'd 'pray for him'!! How absolutely disrespectful knowing this man is so against their beliefs to a point where his life's aim is to disprove them. I believe it was a passive aggressive dig by the church. Exactly the sort of petty thing they'd do and disguise it as a moral act.
    I thought it was the Church of England, who are very respectful and humble? I think there is mutual respect between Dawkins and CofE. However, if it was by the Catholic Church then it is likely to be a passive-aggressive. Reminds me of the behaviour of evangelicals when Christopher Hitchens passed away.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I thought it was the Church of England, who are very respectful and humble? I think there is mutual respect between Dawkins and CofE. However, if it was by the Catholic Church then it is likely to be a passive-aggressive. Reminds me of the behaviour of evangelicals when Christopher Hitchens passed away.
    I don't particularly think any denomination is as respectful as they preach to others but yes, the Catholic Church have to be the most hypocritical, lying group out there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Ummm I don't think so. My original question was how was the first cell brought about rather than all of matter. I just assumed the chance of the right molecules reacting to form one nucleotide as a result of nature would be really small let alone a whole cell.
    Start from QED, all things follow, is what I am saying.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC1996)
    I don't particularly think any denomination is as respectful as they preach to others but yes, the Catholic Church have to be the most hypocritical, lying group out there.
    If you mean Christian group then probably true.
    I guess you could say CofE is the "best of a bad bunch" if you want to put it like that. Looking further, it seems there are accusations that the CofE was 'trolling' when they said that... wouldn't surprise me though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    Unfortunately s/he is... I think this was something proposed by Islam apologist (comedian) Hamza Tzortzis (I-ERA). IIRC, this was an argument for the status quo and hence religion and god... he goes on to say that the only thing most people need is assurance from other people that your mother is indeed your mother. Thus this is an argument that testimony can be trusted and status-quo is always a good thing...?

    What he doesn't realise that one thing is testifiable (and falsifiable)... and the other isn't?

    A simple form of meme theory really.
    Oh God is that an actual argument?!

    I've just realised I haven't even joined the Atheist Soc on here....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    But you didn't argue that there could anything outside of time and space. You just asserted it (or perhaps I missed the argument?) notice that this isn't just to do with God if your point is nothing can exist outside of time and space. You seem to be arguing for nominalism by extension. That's just a consequence for your argument.

    I find your previous scientific points intriguing with their implications for simultaneous causation. There certainly could be wriggle room to argue against it. However, that doesn't settle the contention, remember, though I brought up simultaneous causation and one specific example the main point was to highlight that there is currently no consensus on the directionality of causation. You'll find many a contemporary scientist and philosopher arguing against the basic cause precedes effect. That was my main point. That you need to be aware of the current literature on causation when confidently describing it the way you did.

    Do you think there is some cause and effect in quantum mechanics then? Causality isn't necessarily tied with Newtonian determinism.

    I said that there certainly are interpretations of quantum mechanics which are deterministic. I didn't say that you said all interpretations are correct. I said that they all give the correct answers to measurements and in that sense are equally correct (with regards to verification and falsification). The central point is that, contrary to 'talk meaningfully of the physical world
    , you will need to fashion yourself a scientific hat', you will not be able to use the central tenants of science to discover the true interpretation of quantum mechanics. Your shelf is going to need to make room for a philosophical hat to wear when it comes to physically interpreting QM. Similarly, you absolutely are going to need metaphysics when talking meaningfully of causality. It seems to argue others is to either side with Hume's restricted, empirically based idea of causation or somehow use science (or empiricism) to argue against it. Hume's idea of causation has been brutally attacked with good reasons to reject it. That leaves the latter option, though it seems tough how you could use empiricism to argue against a position which goes only as far as empiricism allows.

    You are right, I didn't compare Einstein to Hume. I said it would be more suitable to compare your position to Hume rather than Einstein.

    I'll just appeal to authority here and use a quote to explain my point:

    'It is true that, given Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, we cannot precisely predict individual subatomic events. What is debated is whether this inability to predict is due to the absence of sufficient causal conditions, or whether it is merely a result of the fact that any attempt to precisely measure these events alters their status. The very introduction of the observer into the arena so affects what is observed that it gives the appearance that effects occur without sufficient or determinative causes. But we have no way of knowing what is happening without introducing observers into the situation and the changes they bring. In the above example, we simply are unable to discern the intermediate states of the electron's existence. When Heisenberg's indeterminacy is understood not as describing the events themselves but rather our knowledge of the events, the Causal Principle still holds'

    And to address you point about not needing philosophical ideas when talking of QM, I guess you could give some reason that would show Einstein and Bhor to be unnecessary in discussing the philosophy of QM?

    'Einstein rejects the probabilistic interpretation of Born and insists that quantum probabilities are epistemic and not ontological in nature. As a consequence, the theory must be incomplete in some way. He recognizes the great value of the theory, but suggests that it "does not tell the whole story", and, while providing an appropriate description at a certain level, it gives no information on the more fundamental underlying level:'

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein_debates

    Furthermore, it's just undeniable that to actually understand the quantum physics, more than simply to the standard of representing it on the language of equations, you're going to need philosophical notions. Here's a good, short response on the these philosophical questions, with a teasing conclusion:

    'For all these and other reasons, I tend to be skeptical of ontological interpretations of probabilistic propositions and QM. Subjective epistemological interpretation of probabilities and QM is more coherent with all standard models of reality. Many thinkers in a wide range of fields tend to embrace "ontological indeterminacy" as if it frees them from the language games of logic and vindicates their certainty about free-will and moral agency, none of which are actually related. "Ontologically indeterminacy" is at best ill-defined, and attempts thus far to define it have resulted in contradictions and paradoxes.'

    It's the reply by Quinn Rusnell

    https://www.quora.com/Theoretical-Ph...or-ontological


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not saying that there is nothing outside of our universe, that's another discussion.

    My argument was aimed at those suggesting that the universe was an 'effect' that was preceded by a cause that happened from without. Their assumption is that this external cause is God, and their overall assumption that cause precedes effect is The result of having experienced only simple cause and effect within our universe at the macro level. This person gives examples such as; a switch is flicked, and light is produced. The reproductive system created the baby etc etc.

    The problem is that if they are going to talk of physical systems, then they need to acknowledge that cause and effect is a process that must occur within time as it has, by definition, sequence. One process cannot be outside time and the other within. Certainly not if we are talking about everyday day macro cause and effect. I argued that there was an issue in extrapolating ides of simultaneous causation onto the beginning of the universe, or anything for that matter as the idea of simultaneity in physics is highly problematic. Also, using any everyday example of cause and effect is also problematic.

    Cause and effect in physics are processes in themselves on the macro level and relate to complex systems. To talk of the weight of a ball (indenting the cushion) as a cause is meaningless. It's mass under acceleration and it's solidity arising out of quantum principles of electron spin would be more meaningful but of course then we are dealing now with a far more complex situation, where simultaneity is not occurring. Again, the idea of simultaneity in our four dimensional world does not exist. The ball on the cushion simply cannot be used in any meaningful way in the context of the creation of the universe. It may be useful elsewhere in philosophy, but not in physics, it's a faulty thought experiment.

    Yes, quantum systems certainly interact with and affect each other.I still don't see why we need metaphysics to talk of QM?

    I would say that some physicists need skills that require them to think abstractly about their calculations.

    Yes I'm familiar to an extent with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, I'm just not sure of the point you are trying to explain? I only have an issue with extrapolating situations that are more analogous than scientific to the particle level/subatomic level/singularity level.


    I'm just of the opinion that where physics is lacking, it's not for lacking philosophical interpretation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    You do not know that for sure. This is an assumption.
    Tell us what you know for sure. Seen as everything we have presented you with is conjecture, apparently.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    But you didn't argue that there could anything outside of time and space. You just asserted it (or perhaps I missed the argument?) notice that this isn't just to do with God if your point is nothing can exist outside of time and space. You seem to be arguing for nominalism by extension. That's just a consequence for your argument.

    I find your previous scientific points intriguing with their implications for simultaneous causation. There certainly could be wriggle room to argue against it. However, that doesn't settle the contention, remember, though I brought up simultaneous causation and one specific example the main point was to highlight that there is currently no consensus on the directionality of causation. You'll find many a contemporary scientist and philosopher arguing against the basic cause precedes effect. That was my main point. That you need to be aware of the current literature on causation when confidently describing it the way you did.

    Do you think there is some cause and effect in quantum mechanics then? Causality isn't necessarily tied with Newtonian determinism.

    I said that there certainly are interpretations of quantum mechanics which are deterministic. I didn't say that you said all interpretations are correct. I said that they all give the correct answers to measurements and in that sense are equally correct (with regards to verification and falsification). The central point is that, contrary to 'talk meaningfully of the physical world
    , you will need to fashion yourself a scientific hat', you will not be able to use the central tenants of science to discover the true interpretation of quantum mechanics. Your shelf is going to need to make room for a philosophical hat to wear when it comes to physically interpreting QM. Similarly, you absolutely are going to need metaphysics when talking meaningfully of causality. It seems to argue others is to either side with Hume's restricted, empirically based idea of causation or somehow use science (or empiricism) to argue against it. Hume's idea of causation has been brutally attacked with good reasons to reject it. That leaves the latter option, though it seems tough how you could use empiricism to argue against a position which goes only as far as empiricism allows.

    You are right, I didn't compare Einstein to Hume. I said it would be more suitable to compare your position to Hume rather than Einstein.

    I'll just appeal to authority here and use a quote to explain my point:

    'It is true that, given Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, we cannot precisely predict individual subatomic events. What is debated is whether this inability to predict is due to the absence of sufficient causal conditions, or whether it is merely a result of the fact that any attempt to precisely measure these events alters their status. The very introduction of the observer into the arena so affects what is observed that it gives the appearance that effects occur without sufficient or determinative causes. But we have no way of knowing what is happening without introducing observers into the situation and the changes they bring. In the above example, we simply are unable to discern the intermediate states of the electron's existence. When Heisenberg's indeterminacy is understood not as describing the events themselves but rather our knowledge of the events, the Causal Principle still holds'

    And to address you point about not needing philosophical ideas when talking of QM, I guess you could give some reason that would show Einstein and Bhor to be unnecessary in discussing the philosophy of QM?

    'Einstein rejects the probabilistic interpretation of Born and insists that quantum probabilities are epistemic and not ontological in nature. As a consequence, the theory must be incomplete in some way. He recognizes the great value of the theory, but suggests that it "does not tell the whole story", and, while providing an appropriate description at a certain level, it gives no information on the more fundamental underlying level:'

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein_debates

    Furthermore, it's just undeniable that to actually understand the quantum physics, more than simply to the standard of representing it on the language of equations, you're going to need philosophical notions. Here's a good, short response on the these philosophical questions, with a teasing conclusion:

    'For all these and other reasons, I tend to be skeptical of ontological interpretations of probabilistic propositions and QM. Subjective epistemological interpretation of probabilities and QM is more coherent with all standard models of reality. Many thinkers in a wide range of fields tend to embrace "ontological indeterminacy" as if it frees them from the language games of logic and vindicates their certainty about free-will and moral agency, none of which are actually related. "Ontologically indeterminacy" is at best ill-defined, and attempts thus far to define it have resulted in contradictions and paradoxes.'

    It's the reply by Quinn Rusnell

    https://www.quora.com/Theoretical-Ph...or-ontological


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Also, in the Quora link, the philosopher describes Schrodinger's Cat as a paradox of some kind when it is not. Pop culture also treats it as some kind of analogy, but it is a genuine, well constructed thought experiment in which all objects are treated as complex quantum systems that become entangled. It is the problem of where indeterminacy ends and where determinacy begins. The cat, he believed, was never in some 'smeared out' state between being alive and being dead. Decoherence has been proposed as a solution to this problem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I agree. But only considering it was alive and had the necessary environmental conditions to grow and replicate. Hence, if this did happen I would place my bet on the cell going extinct many times before giving rise to sufficiently more.

    P.S. Didn't you just say it 'is' likely and you tried it in a lab, but now there's a maybe?
    It's not your bet to place. There are well defined probabilities, as Plantagenet Crown says, very unlikely things happen all the time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Have any of you had a dream in which religious symbols appeared or were thought of?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.