Assumptions

This is a fairly weak pro-religion argument, i know, but i wanna throw it out into the open anyway.

One of the common complaints against religion is that people say it requires accepting something without evidence, or that any evidence is self-justifying and therefore useless.

But

The whole basis of science is based on an assumption. There is no proof that the universe exists, other than the fact that it justifies itself. We can see it, but sight is a property caused by the universe.
Scientists use this assumption to base all other theories off.

In the same way, religion takes the base assumption that God exists, and uses that to prove other things. The universe can exist because it is within Gods power to make it happen.

An assumption is at the bottom of both science and religion.

Cool.

[edit]
reading down the thread, I've come to realize that others have come to the same realization I have.  This is good news.

I love this place.

Ubuntu would argue that science does not assume things at all.  Instead of a scientist saying: "This tree is forty feet tall" he would say "If this tree exists, then it is forty feet tall."  However, it's unclear to me if this is really the form that scientific claims take.  It's important to keep in mind that science is a form of telling stories.  Whether or not scientific entities actually exist (which is an interesting topic on its own) doesn't matter in regards to your comment, though, because you're talking about the basic assumption that scientists must take before proceeding to do science--that is, that there's something to investigate scientifically.

The one thing to keep in mind, though, is that the assumption of the methodology of religion is of a different type than the assumption of scientists (if there indeed is one--which has been debated).  If scientists assume that the universe exists, then they are taking a realistic position in regards to metaphysics (arguing, usually, that that which is perceived is the 'stuff' that exists).  When a theist makes the assumption that god exists, he is assuming that within the confines of reality as we know it (i.e. the universe), there exists a supernatural entity.  That is, a theist would make an additional (non-sensory) assumption about the same universe that a scientist would make.  This is akin to me assuming at the outset that the universe exists and that at the core of each galaxy lives the god of that galaxy.  Whether or not this can be tested empirically isn't the point, the point is that I'm making a claim about the universe beyond what my senses can tell me (and thus, that I'm making the claim that the scientists make as well as an additional claim).

By the way, where did you learn about this methodology business?

actually you use properties of things to prove theory, for example things falling at 9.8 m/s/s helps prove Gravity, finding certain Mesons and Baryons at predicted energy values helps prove the Standard model. These are properties of the sceintific theories.

The universe existing can be said to be proof of gods existence.... but it could also be proof that the Big bang that happened, in fact the existence of the universe can be used to prove whatever crack pot theory i want to make up like.... oh i don't know... the universe exists because the oh powerful potatoe needed the soil to create his offspring in. This is, hopefully, not true, and there is not really any other evidence for this theory, other than rather hand wavy things. However there is quite a lot of evidence for the Big Bang including the latent heat in the universe, averaging at around 3 Kelvin, etc.

Anyawy god demands absolute blind faith from his followers, and god is perfect, therefore if it were possible to prove that god existed, then it would not be possible for god (atleast the christian thought of god) to exist.

Oliwoli, there's a difference between the methodological and philosophical forms of naturalism. The former is a practical assumption we have to make if we wish to examine the universe at all and remain sane. The latter is to assume that the universe literally is coherent, which there is no (and never can be) evidence for, beyond the fact that our senses tell us it is so.

scientists INFER











---------------------------------im locking this thread untill later---------------------------------------------------------

In the same light, here is my take on things in the universe.

What everyone claims to be is not nessecarily what is, was, shall be, or can't be. Anything someone claims as fact cannot be proven regardless of evidence because there is nothing that states that something else disproves it. That being said, it is also impossible to disprove something because it may already be disporven and proven, and more at the same time. There is not anything to restrict any event from happenning, and nothing to support it, because what we say is fact cannot be disproven or proven, and both at the same time, while not being anything. Example; most people regard the big shiny thing in the sky as the Sun, and that it is a star, and therefore cannot be a bananna. But just because it is said to have happened in the past, it cannot be said that it will remain so or that it was so. Also, it is the absence and totallity of all things at one time and at none. Although people believe some things to be fact, my point is that nothing is fact, and yet everything is fact, and that it will both never be and always last this way.

Note that this is not psycho-babble emo crap, but describing chemical and physical properties of the Universe. TO best explain it, it's like we have a veil that only allows us to see some choices. Example:

We See - Limited Choices
l - Earth is Round
lll - Sun is Sun, sun, and star
l - Red is primary color
ll - Cholcolate is good Choclate is bad
i - Things Exist

All To See - Infinite Choices
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll - Earth is a freckle, a bananna
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll - Sun is bananna
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll - Red is opposite duck on the color wheel, as well as Red
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll - Choclate is sad. Chocolate is parallel to Jupertier's Nostril
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll - All things are nothing, everything, and all that isn't in between and not outside of these choices reversed

There is not ny point in trying to prove or disprove anything because it is both already so and will never be, because in a choice, one reality where things are, ours, and where things aren't, theirs collide with ours yesterday at 25 PM. You see, you can't base anything on anything, because there is no such thing as a "tangible" universe.

Right, Kwaun Se, this is basically just really weak Humean philosophy.  All you've done is pointed out that inductive reasoning is incapable of proving anything with 100% certainty.  Indeed, science never presumes to prove anything with 100% certainty, but we tend to see the reason in accepting something as fact when we know it to be true with 99.9999% certainty.

So, since nothing can be totally proven to 100% then i guess both science and religon are based on blind [or partially] faith...and scince it comes down to that i choose science over religon because my perceptions and senses tell me they are there and exsist. So i guess we all live in lies...sweet

That is, a theist would make an additional (non-sensory) assumption about the same universe that a scientist would make.  This is akin to me assuming at the outset that the universe exists and that at the core of each galaxy lives the god of that galaxy.  Whether or not this can be tested empirically isn't the point, the point is that I'm making a claim about the universe beyond what my senses can tell me (and thus, that I'm making the claim that the scientists make as well as an additional claim).

By the way, where did you learn about this methodology business?

The sensory based theory is unreliable unless the universe exists. If the universe doesnt exist then the senses are false and cannot be trusted, if the universe does exist then senses are (probably) true. The universe may be a sensory based theory, but religion is a faith based theory. In the same way as you would say "I cant prove the universe exists, but I sorta SEE it" so to can a religeous person say "I cant prove God exists but i sorta FEEL it" Unless you inherently attach value to senses over feeling ,which is another assumption, a sensory based assumption is worthless.
And i didnt learn about methodology, i have thought that was a problem ever since i learnt that one couldnt prove the universe existed ( i was fairly young). It seemed a bit pedantic to me so i didnt bring it up, but the constant mantra of "religion is faith-based. Science is irrefutable" got on my nerves.

Oliwoli, there's a difference between the methodological and philosophical forms of naturalism. The former is a practical assumption we have to make if we wish to examine the universe at all and remain sane. The latter is to assume that the universe literally is coherent, which there is no (and never can be) evidence for, beyond the fact that our senses tell us it is so.

An equally valid argument is that i need to believe in god to remain sane. In fact, perhaps it is more so. A god brings purpose and meaning to life as well as hope for a better life, if He doesnt exist a person can be left without these. If someone learns that the universe doesnt exist (if it doesnt) then he simply can say "oh well, i coped before i knew"

oh well, i coped before i knew

Could one not also do this were it proven god does not exist?

In the same way as you would say "I cant prove the universe exists, but I sorta SEE it" so to can a religeous person say "I cant prove God exists but i sorta FEEL it"

Not only do I see the world, I hear it, feel it, taste it, and smell it.  Everything that encompasses my life is based on experiencing the universe.

so to can a religeous person say "I cant prove God exists but i sorta FEEL it" Unless you inherently attach value to senses over feeling ,which is another assumption, a sensory based assumption is worthless.

"Feeling" something is not a sensory based assumption. :roll:

In your example, the "feeling" that the religious person is referring to is an emotion, which is just their desire for a higher power to exist. It is not accurate at all.

Quote from: "Oliwoli"

so to can a religeous person say "I cant prove God exists but i sorta FEEL it" Unless you inherently attach value to senses over feeling ,which is another assumption, a sensory based assumption is worthless.

"Feeling" something is not a sensory based assumption. :roll:

In your example, the "feeling" that the religious person is referring to is an emotion, which is just their desire for a higher power to exist. It is not accurate at all.

Thats what he is saying, that you are assuming senses are more important than basic, natural human feelings.

Thats what he is saying, that you are assuming senses are more important than basic, natural human feelings.

Feelings are arbitrary, senses are not. Case closed.

You feel there is a god, I feel there isn't a god. Who is right?

I feel you are an idiot. Am I right? Are you an idiot because my "natural human feelings" say so?

perhaps, perhaps not; however, in the instance of God, there are billions throughout history who have in one way shape or form have 'felt' this God.

perhaps, perhaps not; however, in the instance of God, there are billions throughout history who have in one way shape or form have 'felt' this God.

Yes, and this feeling is simply the desire for god to exist. People feel comfort in thinking that someone is watching, and will help them out in their time of need. But the feeling itself means nothing.

Feelings are arbitrary, senses are not. Case closed.

You feel there is a god, I feel there isn't a god. Who is right?

I feel you are an idiot. Am I right? Are you an idiot because my "natural human feelings" say so?

Senses are arbitrary. You have no idea how I experience the colour red for example. My red could be your blue. The only proof for the reliability of senses are the fact that senses are reliable when compared to themselves.
Give me a reason to believe my senses that does not involve using my senses, and i'll accept that the assumption of universal existence is more valid than the assumption of God.

Give me a reason to believe my senses that does not involve using my senses, and i'll accept that the assumption of universal existence is more valid than the assumption of God.

That's ridiculous, because you use your senses every day (in fact, you couldn't operate in the universe without them).  The very fact that we operate with senses (and are entirely dependent upon them) should give credence to their ability to deliver information (in one way or another) about the universe.

agreed, we use our senses because they are readily at our disposal. no arguments there. but the argument is that the senses arent neccessarily the most important thing, some times you just have to 'follow your instincts"

This is a fairly weak pro-religion argument, i know, but i wanna throw it out into the open anyway.

One of the common complaints against religion is that people say it requires accepting something without evidence, or that any evidence is self-justifying and therefore useless.

But

The whole basis of science is based on an assumption. There is no proof that the universe exists, other than the fact that it justifies itself. We can see it, but sight is a property caused by the universe.
Scientists use this assumption to base all other theories off.

In the same way, religion takes the base assumption that God exists, and uses that to prove other things. The universe can exist because it is within Gods power to make it happen.

An assumption is at the bottom of both science and religion.

I'm sorry, you're completely wrong and this is a load of bullshit.

Science does NOT make the assumption that the universe exists.

Science looks at the observational evidence and puts forward the most likely theory.  We have every reason to believe that the universe does exist and absolutely no reason to believe that it does not exist.  In fact by definition of what we mean by the universe, it has to exist or we couldn't ponder the question.  There is obviously a billion hypothetical scenarios you could build about ways in which the universe is not as we see it, and we're deluded in thinking that it is the way it is, however there is absolutely no reason to believe those, and again, every reason to put a strong amount of faith in our senses.  An assumption is not at the basis of science, weighing up the evidence and making a decisions based on that evidence is at the bottom of science.  Ignoring the evidence and inventing your own completely irrational theory is at the basis of religion.  They are completely different things.

Basically: The observations of our five senses is the basis of all science. However, if you cannot observe a thing with any of the five senses, you will have to pick the most probable theory made from other people, which is pretty much how religion works too. It's more or less that simple.  :?

Just a note:

If something cannot be observed by the five sense, then using the five senses to choose which one is most probable would be fallacious.


Obviously, this is not a proof of God, but an explanation of why using natural evidence to support something (not necesarily God) that you cannot observe would be useless.

If you have no observations to lead to any likelihood of something's existence then to believe it would be fallacious.

Science does NOT make the assumption that the universe exists.

By the rest of your post, you've left me quite unconvinced.  It seems natural that scientists (and all human beings) must assume that the universe exists based on the fact that we sense it every day of our lives.

We have every reason to believe that the universe does exist and absolutely no reason to believe that it does not exist. In fact by definition of what we mean by the universe, it has to exist or we couldn't ponder the question.

knight, how can you not understand what beast has said?? we would not exist if the universe did not exist, and since we exist, the universe exists.

If you have no observations to lead to any likelihood of something's existence then to believe it would be fallacious.

If something cannot be observed by physical means, then to state that it doesn't exist because it cannot be observed by physical means would be fallacious.  It would be like saying 'you cannot see the wind, therefore, because I cannot see it, it does not exist.'  

Granted, you can observe the wind through the sense of touch, you can feel it, but no such sense is in us that we can observe God, (whether it exists or not.)  Therefore, when someone makes a claim that 'You cannot observe God' to say 'God does not exist because we cannot observe it is fallacious.

However, believing in something without evidence is not fallacious, believing in something DESPITE evidence IS.

Quote from: "beast"

We have every reason to believe that the universe does exist and absolutely no reason to believe that it does not exist. In fact by definition of what we mean by the universe, it has to exist or we couldn't ponder the question.

knight, how can you not understand what beast has said?? we would not exist if the universe did not exist, and since we exist, the universe exists.

He DOES understand it.  How do you get that he didn't?  Nothing in his post led me to think that he didn't understand, and in fact, that he did agree with Beasts' premises, he just said that man bases his observations on the assumption that the Universe exists.  Which is what we do.  Whether that assumption is axiomatic (it is) does not matter.  He understood, he just didn't see what Beast's point was.

(I think)

He understood, he just didn't see what Beast's point was.

(I think)

lol, then my mistake.

There is no observation I can make that leads me to the conclusion that God exists. Every observation I can make leads me to the conclusion that the universe exists.
There is no comparison between the two.