• Square Elite
  1. If you are having trouble logging in, check the box, "stay logged in" to fix the issue. Thanks! —KHP Staff
  2. Hi Guest, you may have noticed that we aren't khplanet.com anymore. For more information on why these changes are happening, check out our thread, Site Re-Brand Updates

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Mature Discussion' started by Yukie, May 22, 2009.

  1. Mike

    Mike Member

    There was a lot more to my post than just claiming science is a religion...I had a whole argument in place.

    By your logic, Hinduism and various other pagan religions are not religions because they believe we spawned in ways besides an all knowing Creator...but I don't think anyone would contest to the fact that these are religions in their own right.

    EDIT: I also wanted to make another point:

    At the risk of sounding like a huuuuuge nerd...2 + 2 = 4 is a naive answer. 2 + 2 = 4 only in an adequately defined formal system of arithmetic, such as the traditional Zermaelo-Fraenkel-Choice (ZFC) system of Arithmetic (Wikipedia it if you're interested).

    Infact, I can construct a formal system in which 2 + 2 = 5. What's required to do so? That word we all love to hate: Axioms!

    Unprovable assumptions, things we use as 'building blocks' for proofs, even in Math, are assumed truths! Nothing more! Infact, if we assume a set of rules, we can never prove those rules...for one, it would be cyclic reasoning...and for another, it's a mathematical theorem that, if we could derive a system's consistency, then we would then have a contradiction in our system of rules and infact an inconsistent system. (See for instance, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems on Wikipedia) So in other words, we have no way to know if the rules we chose are correct. 2 + 2 = 4? Not always, but it certainly helps with making predictions.

    And since science is at the very least dependent on Math, then we are forced to conclude there's no such thing as absolute truth...at least not with the tools we are using the describe truth. Math and thus science, are inherently flawed. (Ask your friendly neighbourhood Logician)



    Not to mention, even science has a problem with your logic! Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics (Schrodinger's Cat...I can explain if necessary, or again you can Wiki it)? There is no way to know the professor has a brain FOR CERTAIN without cutting open his head and 'taking a measurement' (looking) with our eyes. One may deduce that he is walking, talking and thus must have a brain, but we cannot denounce the possibility of a miracle with absolute certainty. (This is why quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature...it's about certainty and uncertainty)

    And of course, taking such measurement will kill the professor, and alter the results of our experiment. Quantum Mechanics is fascinating stuff...wave-particle duality, wave functions...heisenberg uncertainty principle, and its relationship with the fourier transform...

    Neat.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
    LivingDeath likes this.
  2. Mythril Roxas

    Mythril Roxas New Member

    Mike, we've missed you.

    Really, I hope everyone listens to what you have to say. You are probably the most knowledgeable user on this site, you probably know more than anyone here, so everyone really SHOULD read your posts.

    Wow, I mean WOW!

    Your right on about everything.
    Science to a degree is a religion, or at least they act like one when it comes to these types of debates.
    Also, I totally agree with you on two things that have been personal beliefs of mine.

    1. Religions and religous people shouldn't look down upon science, because it can infact improve in a sense their own belief, for much of science is truly intertwined with religions and myth.

    2. There are many things out there that we don't know in all fields of science. One thing about science is that it is always changeing, or "can" always change.
    And not knowing half of what lies in the universe means there 'may' be something out there that could tip the belief scales of both science and religion. These things could very well be coming soon to us, the way technology is growing, or could very well be far away due to war and sinful man.
    I hope though that we will see this change in our life time.

    Thats my input, but yeah, Mike is right 100% here people. This IS his area of expertiece after all....lol.
     
  3. Mike

    Mike Member

    Since you like your Socrates and your logical fallacies, thought I'd let you know that this is commiting argumentum ad verecundiam, a form of Red Herring.

    Socrates himself does not want you to defer to Socrates, and instead use your brain to come to your own conclusions.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2009

Share This Page