• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?


  • Total voters
    60
Well, that's the case. I view the world from a fundamentally Functionalist perspective.

At the very least, you're a good man for not trying to beat a dead horse.

Yes, so do I.

That's as opposed to a fundamentally fictionalist perspective, as in, people who chose fantasy over fact.
 
Mathematical proofs are as close to absolute certainty as we get. For example, the mathematical representation of gravity is "proven" more than the actual thing we call gravity.
"Gravity" isn't proven via mathematics. Gravity--the phenomenon that things fall downwards--is a fact. The "theory of gravitation" isn't "proven" with mathematics. The theory of gravitation is a theory that claims (in general) that objects accelerate at a particular speed when dropped. The theory can be represented by a particular mathematical formula. Experiments strongly support this theory because the test data conforms to its predictions.

Key phrase to understand:
The theory of gravitation is not "proven". It is strongly supported by experimentation.

Mathematical proofs are about as close to fact as can possibly be shown by science..... Mathematical proofs are as close to absolute certainty as we get.
You keep comparing and contrasting things in manners that they can't be compared to one another and its just weird and wrong. It just makes your statements gobbledygook.

Its probably because you use explain things using colloquial terms, especially when discussing technical items. This causes confusion.
 
Last edited:
"Gravity" isn't proven via mathematics. Gravity--the phenomenon that things fall downwards--is a fact. The "theory of gravitation" isn't "proven" with mathematics. The theory of gravitation is a theory that claims (in general) that objects accelerate at a particular speed when dropped. The theory can be represented by a particular mathematical formula. Experiments strongly support this theory because the test data conforms to its predictions.

Key phrase to understand:
The theory of gravitation is not "proven". It is strongly supported by experimentation.

You keep comparing and contrasting things in manners that they can't be compared to one another and its just weird and wrong. It just makes your statements gobbledygook.

Its probably because you use explain things using colloquial terms, especially when discussing technical items. This causes confusion.

In the way that gravity is not a thing, let alone a person, but a force which moves objects, that is how I view God.
 
In the way that gravity is not a thing, let alone a person, but a force which moves objects, that is how I view God.

God is gravity.
 
God is gravity.

Well the idea of God is certainly a force that moves minds.

The typical atheist demand for proof of God is like some young earth creationist demanding samples of dark matter or gravity therefore doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Well the idea of God is certainly a force that moves minds.

Jerry, you misunderstand me. Read what I said literally. God is gravity.

The typical atheist demand for proof of God is like some young earth creationist demanding samples of dark matter or gravity therefore doesn't exist.

“The one who is devoid of knowledge, dedication and faith does not gain spiritual knowledge and ultimately perishes. The one who is sceptical, neither attains this world nor the world beyond and never remains happy.”
 
Scientists believe visual effect with no clear vision of cause. Non-scientists believe visual effect is caused by a miracle.

ricksfolly

I've always felt it was more of an occupation thing. Scientists work doing science, non-scientists don;t.
 
In the way that gravity is not a thing, let alone a person, but a force which moves objects, that is how I view God.

If God is a force then it should be observable and testable such that we can verify its existence.

Well the idea of God is certainly a force that moves minds.

The typical atheist demand for proof of God is like some young earth creationist demanding samples of dark matter or gravity therefore doesn't exist.

Gravity can be directly demonstrated to exist. Dark matter is inferred to exist. Do you claim to have evidence to show your god exists as well? Or is it just a meme?
 
Last edited:
If God is a force then it should be observable and testable such that we can verify its existence.



Gravity can be directly demonstrated to exist. Dark matter is inferred to exist. Do you claim to have evidence to show your god exists as well? Or is it just a meme?

gravity is demonstrable, therefor, God is shown to exist. God is gravity.

And I will repost this in case you missed it the first time round:
“The one who is devoid of knowledge, dedication and faith does not gain spiritual knowledge and ultimately perishes. The one who is sceptical, neither attains this world nor the world beyond and never remains happy.”
 
If God is a force then it should be observable and testable such that we can verify its existence.

God as an idea, a force, a wave, not a being or person or object.

Is this not testable? Can we not look back though history and observe how the idea of God moves through people, influencing thought, culture and behavior? Don't atheists point to the belief in God as the force behind the inquisition, the crucaids, modern terrorism. Don't 'people of the cloth' defend themselves with examples of how the idea or faith in God is the force behind charity, of the actions of saints, of social cohesion in every culture?

Gravity can be directly demonstrated to exist. Dark matter is inferred to exist. Do you claim to have evidence to show your god exists as well? Or is it just a meme?

I would say that if God's influence can be observed, then God can be inferred to exist.
 
Last edited:
God as an idea, a force, a wave, not a being or person or object.

Is this not testable? Can we not look back though history and observe how the idea of God moves through people, influencing thought, culture and behavior? Don't atheists point to the belief in God as the force behind the inquisition, the crucaids, modern terrorism. Don't 'people of the cloth' defend themselves with examples of how the idea or faith in God is the force behind charity, of the actions of saints, of social cohesion in every culture?

God is everything.
 
God as an idea, a force, a wave, not a being or person or object.

Is this not testable? Can we not look back though history and observe how the idea of God moves through people, influencing thought, culture and behavior? Don't atheists point to the belief in God as the force behind the inquisition, the crucaids, modern terrorism. Don't 'people of the cloth' defend themselves with examples of how the idea or faith in God is the force behind charity, of the actions of saints, of social cohesion in every culture?



I would say that if God's influence can be observed, then God can be inferred to exist.

by that logic, the gods of the ancients also existed.
 
The real god probably bears no resemblance to the ones that humans have created throughout history.

We often personify intangible things so we can grasp them. The notion of space-time being a fabric, for example.

An idea of a god can take many forms, from legendary real people, personified Jungian archetypes, to perfectly natural yet unexplained (to that local people) forces of nature.

Spirit, for example, just means a way of behaving. Humans personified this way, or motion, or pattern of behavior, so as to better grasp it. The Holy Spirit is not a literal being, but is alleged to be the superior pattern of behavior, healthiest moral outlook and attitude, best way of existing there can be.

De-personified, the allegation that an evil spirit made a child sick, means something as ordinary as bad personal hygiene, or someone els's misbehavior passing the illness to the child. In this way it's fair to say that the evil spirit of greed came over the executives responsible for the Deepwater Horizon spill. The spirit of greed is not a real being, but an influence.

The notion of a supreme God of gods is the idea that there is a best pattern of behavior out of many good patterns of behavior.
 
Last edited:
gravity is demonstrable, therefor, God is shown to exist. God is gravity.
If god = gravity then why use the term "god"? Why not just say "gravity"? If god is more than just gravity then what is god?

You seem to be equivocating.

“The one who is devoid of knowledge, dedication and faith does not gain spiritual knowledge and ultimately perishes. The one who is sceptical, neither attains this world nor the world beyond and never remains happy.”

Oh joy, platitudes. :roll:

Here's one from Captain Kirk: "Without freedom of choice there is no creativity. The body dies."


See how silly platitudes and pithy quotes are?
 
If god = gravity then why use the term "god"? Why not just say "gravity"? If god is more than just gravity then what is god?

"Gravity" is not a social element, whereas "God" is. The same force viewed from different contexts.
 
I would say that if God's influence can be observed, then God can be inferred to exist.

By that logic, if you cite unicorns as the driving motive behind mowing your lawn, unicorns must exist.
 
God as an idea, a force, a wave, not a being or person or object.
An idea only "exists" within the mind(s) of conscious beings. Does your god only "exist" as an idea?

A force can be shown to exist otherwise it is just an idea.

I don't know what you mean by "a wave". A wave of what? Seems like you are trying to use scientific jargon to explain something. I.E., you are being metaphorical and vague.

Is this not testable?
Can you explain how you would test it?

Can we not look back though history and observe how the idea of God moves through people, influencing thought, culture and behavior?
Yep. That is exactly what a meme is.

From wiki: A meme is a unit of social information.[2] It is a relatively newly coined term and identifies ideas or beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to another. The concept comes from an analogy: as genes transmit biological information, memes can be said to transmit idea and belief information.

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

Advocates of the meme idea say that memes may evolve by natural selection, in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influencing a meme's reproductive success.

Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate the most effectively spread best. Some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]

Don't atheists point to the belief in God as the force behind the inquisition, the crucaids, modern terrorism.
No, its not that simple. Non-theists often point to particular worldviews held by the religious which stem from belief in specific gods, interpretations of holy books, and prophets.

You can't get from "I believe a god exists" to "therefore I should do X". It take more than the belief in some generic entity.

Don't 'people of the cloth' defend themselves with examples of how the idea or faith in God is the force behind charity, of the actions of saints, of social cohesion in every culture?
sure. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. The religious often like to give their favored god(s) credit for all the goods things and none of the bad. E.G., if a train wreck kills 600 people then its just an unfortunate tragedy. But if a baby survives then its a miracle from god. Its quite silly the lack of critical thinking that occurs.

I would say that if God's influence can be observed, then God can be inferred to exist.
Sure you can. When one's imagination is the only limitation for explaining something then gods, pixies, demons, aliens, and a seemingly infinite amount of other things can be inferred to exist.

Once again, it goes back to whether you care if your beliefs are true. If you do care then more rigorous standards are applied than unbridled imagination.
 
"Gravity" isn't proven via mathematics. Gravity--the phenomenon that things fall downwards--is a fact. The "theory of gravitation" isn't "proven" with mathematics. The theory of gravitation is a theory that claims (in general) that objects accelerate at a particular speed when dropped. The theory can be represented by a particular mathematical formula. Experiments strongly support this theory because the test data conforms to its predictions.
Your first three sentences I never claimed to be true. Math cannot prove a phenomenon. We can't say, well the math works, therefore it exists. We can, however, describe the phenomenon starting with a few basic postulates (everything does) by logically going along the path. We have yet to find a case where we see the math working, but the phenomenon is clearly NOT there (there are, however, things that might exist, can be shown via math, but not tested for via experimentation - like strings). We hypothesized by math the existence of several subatomic particles, etc. Science and math usually go hand in hand. One shows by induction that something should occur and the other verifies that it indeed holds true for every time we tried it in experiments. The logic behind it "It is done by proving that the first statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any one statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one." shows that it will work in the future. Experiments can only prove that thus far, it has held up the rule, or it has yet to disprove the rule. This is strong evidence, but does not show that it should be true in the future.

Key phrase to understand:
The theory of gravitation is not "proven". It is strongly supported by experimentation
That's precisely my point. Gravity itself can only be supported by by experimentation - and is strongly so. On the other hand, say newton's law - that is provable by mathematical induction (which is one of the strongest forms of reason and about as close to absolute proof as we can get). Mathematical induction is a form of deduction, too, not induction (despite its name).

You keep comparing and contrasting things in manners that they can't be compared to one another and its just weird and wrong. It just makes your statements gobbledygook.
I didn't see where I did that anywhere.
Its probably because you use explain things using colloquial terms, especially when discussing technical items. This causes confusion.
I frankly don't see where I did this either. I talked about scientific theories, mathematical proofs and that's about it. Theories in physics (especially E&M and QM, not so much CM) often include a lot of math, which blurs them. Everything I said should have been covered in any introductory math proofs course, I really don't think I'm being that unclear.
 
By that logic, if you cite unicorns as the driving motive behind mowing your lawn, unicorns must exist.

Unicorn comes from the Greek "unicornis", ie; Rhinoceros unicornis, aka the Indian Rhinoceros. "Unicorn" accurately refers to any horned animal of great size.

I assure you they do exist. Here's a picture of a real unicorn:

230px-Rhinoceros_unicornis_fg01.JPG


I would love to see you have one mow your lawn.
 
Last edited:
i don't think so, jerry.

Well, I do, because I can quote the supporting passages. Even if scripture is a work of pure fiction, it still tells of other gods.
 
An idea only "exists" within the mind(s) of conscious beings. Does your god only "exist" as an idea?

In true keeping with my reputation among religious circles to often find guidance outside of cannon:

”In a reality that is inconceivably multidimensional, the old concepts of God are relatively meaningless. Even the term, a supreme being, is itself distortive, for you naturally project the qualities of human nature upon it. If I told you God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real–nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action.”

Amazon.com: Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (9781878424075): Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts: Books
 
Dittohead A scientific theory has been proven. It is accepted as fact. Evolution is a fact. Malaria is caused by a microbe that is spread by mosquitoes said:
That may be enough for you, but not me. Fact is something that can be seen, demonstrated, and explained in words everyone can understand, not just the words of exalted members of an exclusive scientist club.

Show me... Prove it to me...

My motor was idling until your post put it into gear... Thanks for the stimulu

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom