Can my God beat your God?

[shaolin kungfu]

Do you guys really understand the reasons for particle-wave duality?

I know it has something to do with light. If you gave me some time to go through my books I could say more.

[Christopher M]

So what you mean is, you've been told by someone that you should believe it and that it makes sense, even though it doesn't make sense to you personally.

And this is different from your complaints against religious dogmatism how...?

[shaolin kungfu]

So what you mean is, you've been told by someone that you should believe it and that it makes sense, even though it doesn't make sense to you personally.

This is in no way what I meant. It was explained to me in great detail at one time, and although it was extremely confusing, it made sense in the end. How you got that I have done no personal research makes no sense, especially after I said that I could explain more if I had some of my books.

[prana]

oh oh this thread has gone from

Can my OS hack your OS, to an PERL vs. PHP

doh!

Me go to lunch !!!

[joedoe]

What, that light exhibits the properties of both a particle and a wave? Is that the duality you are talking about?

It is the accepted theory (like many others in science) simply because there isn't a better theory yet to explain the phenomena.

I do agree with Serpent though - if a better model was proposed, then science would probably move with it. This cannot always be said of 'true believers'.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Christopher M
The views of Christians have changed dramatically over the years. That's what a "theologian" is... they don't just sit around patting their backs about all agreeing. They argue, propose models, etc. It's a changing tradition, like any other.

Contemporary Catholic theology stems mostly from Thomas Aquinas who is closer in time to us than to Jesus. And, even staying with Catholicism, there have been significant changes since then.

Extend that to Christianity generally and you've got almost every different imaginable.

Do you guys really understand the reasons for particle-wave duality?

Yet Xtians still believe, without any evidence and against all accepted scientific theory and reason, that Jesus died on a cross then came to life again three days later, to cite just one example of many.

Surely you're not serious?

[shaolin kungfu]

I was watching a show on the religious channel today. It attempted to say that evolution had no scientific backing, and that the ressurection and emaculate conception did. I laughed my ass off.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
This is in no way what I meant. It was explained to me in great detail at one time, and although it was extremely confusing, it made sense in the end. How you got that I have done no personal research makes no sense, especially after I said that I could explain more if I had some of my books.

So that you can find it in a book means it's logical rather than faith-based? I'm trying to find what distinction you're drawing here.

Originally posted by Serpent
Surely you're not serious?

About what?

Yet Xtians still believe, without any evidence and against all accepted scientific theory and reason, that Jesus died on a cross then came to life again three days later, to cite just one example of many.

The 'evidence' for that belief comes from argument from foundation. Just like the 'evidence' for particle-wave duality comes from argument from foundation. In both cases, the belief in the foundation is a matter of faith.

You've been told these two things by two different authorities and chosen to accept one and not the other. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. It's just ironic when people act like their beliefs are the only valid ones and everyone else is a silly goof. Yes, this happens among agnostics and atheists and within topics other than religion.

Most of the time this happens when the people involved don't have any real understanding of the topic they are commenting on. If I may be so presumptuous, it seems like this is the case here.

Education is a fabulous cure for intolerance.

[shaolin kungfu]

Religion is based on faith. Science is based on tests.

[Serpent]

Hey, I'm tolerant of just about anything (except BlackJack! )

However, I have seen light, I have observed experiments, I understand the theory of the particle wave model and I accept that at the moment that's the best way we understand it. Personally, I think we don't have the technology to measure as minutely as we need to.

However, try giving me the same to go on to convince me of the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Religion is based on faith. Science is based on tests.

Not quite - science is founded on theories that we then attempt to test. However even science is not concrete (as I think was the point with the particle wave theory argument)

[shaolin kungfu]

That's why I didn't say science was based on facts. To my knowledge, all theories are eventually tested.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Religion is based on faith. Science is based on tests.

Science isn't "based on tests." According to the scientific method, you propose a theory which generated a hypothesis. Then you go and see if that hypothesis really occurs. If it does, you accept the theory. If it doesn't, you don't. If two theories are accepted, you compare them on various issues such as the breadth and depth of their explanatory power and Occam's Razor.

Philosophy works the same way, it varies in that the hypothesis testing isn't observation (empiricism), but logic. Science itself is actually a branch of philosophy; all science is philosophy, but not all philosophy is science.

Another branch of philosophy is theology. It follows the exact same structure.

What you may be aiming for here is saying that you are a strict empiricist. And that's perfectly fine; some people are. This means that you'll have to discard an awful lot more than religion if you want to hold a logically sound position... including most modern physics.

Originally posted by Serpent
However, I have seen light...

No you haven't. Cellular activation on your cortex has elicited a response in your consciousness. You subscribe to a worldview that describes a thing called "light" which is associated with that process.

Something curious... cellular activation of another part of your cortex will elicit a response in your consciousness that people describe as "seeing God."

What difference are you making here?

However, try giving me the same to go on to convince me of the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

Sure. It'll take a while though. And it will require assumptions at a few places, just like particle-wave duality does (argument by foundation). For instance, it'll require you assume the existance of some kind of God.

[Serpent]

Which I won't do.

How does that compare to particle wave. I may not be able to see the particles or waves of light, but I can see it's presence or it's absence quite clearly.

I can never experience the presence or absence of a god.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
That's why I didn't say science was based on facts. To my knowledge, all theories are eventually tested.

Yes, they are tested and eventually if the the testing 'proves' the theory then they may be accepted as a Law of science. However, even Laws are subject to review and change. So there is still an element of faith (or I guess they are assumptions on which the theories rely) in science.