Is Science without Religion really Lame

ballukhan #70-72 Those are certainly better arguments than those put forward by the IP (Is Party) headed by urstruly. To be fair these are also better arguments then the ones presented by the INP (Is Not Party) headed by hamidm. Relatively speaking of course.
:-)

Or, as my old boss used to say when he heard an irrational argument: ``In other words, what you are saying is that the sun rises from the east and sets in the west, and that is proves that we must change our accounting system``.

And to be fair, it is not just urstruly and hamidm. two thirds of the arguments on chowk are of the same variety (``the run rises from the east, and that proves that Pakistan is a failed state``, or something like that). sometimes i see people posting links and cutting and pasting entire articles as supposed support for their viewpoints, when on reading those links it becomes clear that they do nothing of the kind.

Perhaps the most profound discovery that man has made in the past one million years is the fact that Time is not a constant physical quantity. Einstein through his Special Theory of relativity proves that and his thesis is confirmed by the observation of accelerating particles in the particle acclerators. As a matter of fact Einstein proved that for an object moving at the speed of light the time becomes zero. In space, where space ships usually move at the speed of 40,000 miles an hour this effect of time dilation has been measured in the fractions of seconds.

This fact shows that time is a physical quantity that can be manipulated. The corollary of this discussion could be ``would it be impossible for God to have control over time``. The answer is obvious.

HA! This list of all the arguments for the existence of God is worth looking: tahmed you would enjoy.http://facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html

I am putting some on the board.

137. ARGUMENT FROM BRUTE FORCE AGAINST AUTOMOTIVE DECORATIONS

1) [Christian tears off Darwin fish, breaks it into thirds, and sticks it onto driver`s side window (true story)]
2) Therefore, evolution is false.
3) Therefore, God exists.


138. ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE

1) The view that God exists is a worldview, just like the scientific and evolution worldviews.
2) You`re not discriminating against our worldview, are you?
3) Therefore, the God worldview has the same value was the evolution and scientific worldviews.
4) Therefore, God exists.


139. ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION

1) Therefore, God exists.


140. EXISTENTIALIST ARGUMENT

1) I have a boil on my bottom.
2) Therefore, God exists.


141. ARGUMENT FROM EVIDENTIAL ASSERTION (HENRY MORRIS`S ARGUMENT)

1) God exists.
2) Therefore, all the physical evidence must show this.
3) Therefore, it does.
4) Therefore, God exists.


142. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF MEANNESS

1) If God didn`t exist, it would be mean of him to make me think he did.
2) God isn`t mean.
3) Therefore, God exists.


143. ARGUMENT FROM WE ALL GOT FAITH

1) We all believe in something -- thus, we all have faith in something.
2) My faith in God is no different than your faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow morning.
3) Therefore, God exists.


144. ARGUMENT FROM BIGOTRY (FRED PHELPS`S ARGUMENT)

1) The Bible says that anal sex is yucky.
2) I agree.
3) Plus, some gay people died of AIDS.
4) Therefore, God exists.


145. ARGUMENT FROM BEAVERS

1) Some beavers built sort of a cross shaped thing and sort of stood around it. (apparently true story)
2) Therefore, God exists.


146. ARGUMENT FROM COOLNESS.

1) That`s really cool.
2) God must have done that.
3) Therefore, God exists.


147. ARGUMENT FROM BIBLE IN THE WTC

1) An intact Bible was found in the WTC ruins.
2) Oh, wait . . . turns out it was a dictionary.
3) Oh well, Therefore, God exists anyway.


148. ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL EQUATIONS (GENERIC VERSION)

1) If there exists a numerical value, NV, such that for a key religious figure, KRF, in a holy book, HB, there two measurments of time, T1 and T2, mentioned in HB, but not necessarily associated with KRF in HB, such that T1 and T2 can be inserted into a calculator function (such as addition or subtraction), CF1, of two variables, such that CF1(T1,T2) yields T3, and HB alleges that three significant events, E1, E2, and E3 (in chronological order) associated with KRF, occured, and the descriptions in HB of E1, E2, and E3 are such that it cannot be proven based these descriptions alone that T3 is an impossible measurement of the span of time from the microsecond, ME1, of the alleged event E1 and the microsecond, ME3, of alleged event E3, and the numeric value NV can be computed by choosing two units of time (such as seconds, hours, minutes, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries), U1 and U2, so that solving the equation for NV: NV*(1 U1) + NV(1 U2) = T3 yields a numeric value for NV for which it cannot be proven based on the writings of HB that NV*(1 U1), is an impossible measure of the exact number of microseconds between ME1 and the microsecond ME2 at which alleged event E2 occured, nor proven based on the writings of HB that NV*(1 U2) is an impossible measure time, to the nearest microsecond, between ME2 and ME3, and there exists a function, F, such that F(NV) is a combination of a calculator function of one variable, CF2 (such as log10, sin, cos, sqrt, ln, etc.), and a calculator function of two variables, CF3 (such as multiply, add, subtract, or divide), whereby F(NV) = CF3(CF2(NV),NV*(1 U1)), and computing F(X) gives the value Y, which has units (1/U1), and there exists units U3, such that Y*(1 u3) gives Y in units of (U3/U1), and the conversion of Y(U3/U1) to compatible units, U4/U1, by multiplying Y(U3/U1)*N, where N is the value (1 U4)/(1 U3), gives Y*N(U4/U1), and there exists a physical constant, C1, which can be expressed in units U5/U4, such that C1(U5/U4)*Y*N(U4/U1) gives C1*Y*N(u5/u1), and in the culture in which HB was written, there was an approximation, A, for the aforementioned physical constant, C1, expressed in units U5/U1, such that the number of significat digits, SD, for which the decimal representation of A matches the decimal representation of C1*N*Y is greater than or equal to 9, then God exists.
2) NV exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.


149. ARGUMENT FROM BASTARDIZED DESCARTES.

1) I think.
2) Therefore, God am.


150. ARGUMENT FROM SEVEN YEAR OLD

1) This seven year old believes in God.
2) You don`t want to break a seven year old`s heart, now do you?
3) Therefore, God exists.


151. ARGUMENT FROM COMMON PHRASES

1) Oh my God!
2) Goddammit!
3) God bless you.
4) He has more money than God!
5) In God we trust.
6) I`m God`s gift to women.
7) God only knows.
8) God forbid . . .
9) One nation, under God.
10) Oh God! Oh yes!!! OH GOD!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!
11) Use your God-given talents!
12) God will provide.
13) There but for the grace of God go I.
14) Dear God . . .
15) Oh, for the love of God . . .
16) God help us!
17) God almighty!
18) God bless America
19) Not even God could tell the difference.
20) I swear to God.
21) As God is my witness . . .
22) Thank you, God!
23) My God!
24) Good God!
25) God`s green Earth.
26) In God`s country
27) What if God were one of us?
[more to come, we`re sure...]
N+1) Therefore, God exists.


152. ARGUMENT FROM IT IS WRITTEN

1) Morals have to come from somewhere.
2) The Bible has lots of ``Thou shalt nots`` in it.
3) Therefore, God exists.


153. ARGUMENT FROM COLLEGE FUNDING

1) You believe that God exists.
2) If I ever discover otherwise, you will get no money for college.
3) Therefore, God exists.


154. ARGUMENT FROM PORK

1) In the Bible, God commands the Hebrews not to eat any pork.
2) Since then we`ve learned that if you eat undercooked pork, you might get trichinosis.
3) Therefore, God exists.

I would say that God is a matter of ``heart`` and for that you have to first follow the Tariqah and stop mouthing non-sense like Urstruly.

378. ARGUMENT FROM GEORGE W. BUSH

1) That god won`t hunt.
2) Y`all.
3) Ergo, um, axle of evil, ahh, claridify, umm, supportification, ah, pretzel.
3) Y`all.
4) What he said.
5) Therefore, God existifies.
2) Launch.


379. GODEL`S ARGUMENT

1) Any proof of God`s existence will always be incomplete.
2) Therefore, Godel exists.


380. MINIMALISTIC ARGUMENT

1) God


381. ARGUMENT FROM PLUMBER

1) Therefore, God exists.
2) That`ll be five hundred dollars.


382. ARGUMENT FROM THE SOUP NAZI

1) If God exists, he will stand in line like everybody else.
2) That`s it! No soup for you!
3) Therefore, God exists.


383. ARGUMENT FROM GOD`S MOTHER

1) You never call.
2) Mr. Bigshot, too important to call his own mother.
3) I might as well not exist. *sniff*
4) And if I don`t exist . . .
5) [God quickly calls his mother]
6) Therefore, God exists.
6a) Now let me materialize a nice hot cup of chicken soup . . .


384. ARGUMENT FROM CLASSIFIED ADS

1) Suprmdl sks lv-in bdygrd. 1 bdrm apt.
2) Thr4 Gd xsts.


385. ARGUMENT FROM DAUGHTER

1) Can I have twenty bucks?
2) I HATE you!
3) Can you take me to the mall?
4) There IS a God!


386. ARGUMENT FROM SON

1) God made me do it.
2) Therefore, God exists.


387. ARGUMENT FROM SPOUSE

1) If you are still on that damned computer, God help you!
2) Therefore, God exists.


388. ARGUMENT FROM LONG SILENCE

1) God exists.
2) [atheist explains why he doesn`t]
3) [long silence]
4) [atheist forgets about the argument and goes home]
5) Therefore, God exists.


389. ARGUMENT FROM FOOD CHAIN

1) Humans are right at the top of the food chain.
2) God made it this way.
3) Therefore, God exists.


390. ARGUMENT FROM UNDERSTANDING

1) You`re not meant to understand.
2) Therefore, God exists.


391. ARGUMENT FROM ALIENS

1) Everyone knows that aliens don`t exist.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
3) Oh, but God`s different!
4) Therefore, God exists.


392. ARGUMENT FROM SURVIVAL OF THE STUPID

1) Norman and Jason have been posting for a couple of years now.
2) And yet, there`s no possible way that anyone THAT fu@king stupid could survive more than an hour without supernatural assistance.
3) It`s a miracle!
4) Therefore, God exists.


393. ARGUMENT FROM DESTRUCTIVE CAPABILITY

1) The U.S. has the firepower to slaughter as many third world people as it wants.
2) The U.S. uses that firepower regularly.
3) Of course, America`s firepower and willingness to use it are God`s will.
4) Therefore, God exists.


394. ARGUMENT FROM HUME (BRITT, NOT DAVID)

1) If Osama bin Laden is still alive, then Dubya`s war on terrorism has thus far failed.
2) I can`t wrap my mind around the idea that the war has been a failure, even in part.
3) Therefore, we must interpret the fact that we haven`t seen any new bin Laden tapes for a while as conclusive proof that bin Laden is dead.
4) Therefore, God exists.

#58 by Urstruly on January 16, 2004 10:02am PT

Sheer nonsense and misinformation!!

``....What scientists (read atheists) really want is to ``see`` God through one of these five senses and as long as they do not ``see`` it, they claim that it does not exist. They could be as wrong as they were in the case of microbes....``

Instead of your stupid religious metaphysics with its limited number of un-observable, it is the sciences which have a veritable ontology of un-observables whiere none of the entities can be ``seen`` by the senses but are successful hypotheses in not only in highly specialized sciences like the particle physics, nuclear chemistry, micro-biology, astronomy but also in the common day/language ``un-observables`` like the electromagnatic waves, inertia, kinetic energy, electric current and so on which are all successful hypothetical entities which can not only explain past ``events`` but can also predict future ``events`` which can be open to testing.
But this cannot be done by any of your mumbo jumbo religious superstitions like- 9/11 occured because God willed!!

#54 by tahmed32 on January 16, 2004 7:13am PT
You are mistaken to interpret my jibe on the cosmological argument in my PS as having some bearing on the acceptance of Islam in the Indian sub-continent- I agree to what you have to say in your post about the reasons for it, and I have also maintained the same all along.
The fact of the matter is that I was pointing that most of the time the people who attempt conversion of another person`s opinions in matters of faith and belief use every available method and technique of doing so - including the use of physical threat both overt and covert, torture, seduction, rewards (including the rewards after life), positions, security, support etc. etc.- the history of Islam also contains such instances when the faithfuls rejected the offers made by pagans to change their faith.
This is because I think that the cosmological argument offered by Urstruly in the anecdote was not strong enough to force a change in an ordinary person`s opinion- it could have been forceful because of the dramatic effect with which this argument was presented (all the waiting by the guy) - Infact , such anecdoes are mostly ``dramatized`` because they make great publicity materials for the mullahs (like the falling idol of Saddam which omits the fact that the American Marines had infact pulled it down) - it omits the background politicking that takes place.
The most prominent was the recantation of Galileo who denounced his views publicaly yet murmured in private -

``yet it moves``


I would request all to study Galileo`s recantation and go through the background of this trial. If mullahs are in power they will do this to every person with a belief in Scientific Materialsim:

``I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors general against heretical depravity throughout the whole Christian Republic, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the holy Gospels -- swear that I have always believed, do now believe, and by God`s help will for the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves: .....``

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

#54 by tahmed32 on January 16, 2004 7:13am PT

So, as I said - welcome to this Pakistani website.....

I am sure the chowk editors would have something to say about it - does this mean that anything against Pakistan would be censored by them??? I do not believe that you have a sigular influence over their editorial policies- so forget it!!!

AlephNull: Im not of soundmind rite now so i apologise 4 any inaccuracies, lol...

Regarding the zero. U are showing that certain variables POINT TO the existence of the concept, zero. That in and of itself does not dispute my claim that zero is an INEFFABLE concept. (Reading something vs Reading INTO something).

We are now (and will almost always be) at a state where a postulization can be made arguing for the existance of a thing called zero (or even the existence of the variable INFINITY). However we cannot conceptualize neither zero nor infinity. They are at the cornerstone of mathematics and arguably a lot of scientific research - yet they cannot be described. What does this remind u of (God + RELIGION)???? We believe in some immeasurables and disbelieve in others...

The point here is that both religion and science BELIEVE IN things which are UNKNOWABLE. How does one define no thing? (``The name which can be named is not the eternal name...) How does one define zero? The presence of nothing? How can one define the concept of PI? How do u define a number extending forever? WE CANNOT because nothing and eternity cannot be conceptualized. Science deals with the FINITE and has NO BUSINESS dealing with things which are from the INFINATE world (Infinity and No-Thingness).

Secondly, (This will be hard to overstand...) some questions for U ->That SCIENCE has EVIDENCE of ``interior effects`` means that they exist? Correct? Now would they exist if science had no evidence of them? So the existence of a thing is relative to science`s observation of it? Why does science ASSUME that only those affects which can be measured are ``real``? Why is something not real if it cannot be measured and repeated? Who made these rules ABSOLUTE for you? Do u follow them cuz they sound cool? Is it possible for something to be real and to exist which cannot be measured?

Undertsand that science tends to give us the impression that it knows something when it does not (BIG BANG). Like descartes we must begin by questioning everything (such as why do we accept the scientifc method of verification? Science is filtering reality through its lens and you all are busy convincing urselves that no other reality exists.

It has unilaterally created a SYSTEM of verification, yet the fact that this has occured does not mean that this system is the only method of verifying reality, nor does this mean that ALL of reality is necessarily subject to the variables of this system.

``Whereas so-called `right-brained` methods of alleged ‘verification’ suffer from the flaw of relying on psychological, interior events that cannot be reliably communicated or repeated``

WHY do u ASSUME that to be REAL, something must be reliably communicated and repeated? You are simply Seeing the world how u WANT it to appear (Jus like urstruly). The world does not exist by urs or science`s terms. It iz what it iz N it will exist this very way whether u can communicate it or not. Peace.

may be diffiuclt to know for some whether egg came first or the chicken came first -- but for God -- NO doubt -- Adam came first then came God...

Would this very enquiry and discussion be considered scientific or religious?

---

Gill saheb nay savaal poochha hai:
Is Science without Religion really Lame?


Lafz really nay jahaan savaal ko mustehkam kiyaa hai , vahaan yeh uljhan paidaa ho gaee hai kay asl mas`ala tO reality (whatever that be) hee ko pehchaanNay kaa hay.

Aur yahaan mehez reality khud daikhnaa aur janNaa hee matloob O maqsood naheen bulkay iss ko dikhaana aur bavar kraana bhee utnaa hee ehm hai.

Khair:
Iss maa`roozi jumlay kay ba`ad , iss khaksaar kaa yeh ghair-mubhim aur shaffaf javaab hai:

nahin, Qata-un naheen

carpenter ya sciencedaan, jo bhee ma`addi ashyaa sey nabrad-aazmaa hai uss kay kaam main religion kaa koi dakhl nahin. agar carpenter caskets banaa rahaa ho, tubb bhee nahin.

Vuzahat aur tafseel:

Ghalibun yahaan SameerJB aur Gill Saheb pukkay sciencedaan hain ( zaroori naheen atheist hoan : urstruly say ma` azrat kaysaath)

Ilm ko ulema`a nay ( mashriqui aur maghribi dono) do hissoN main taquseem kiyaa hai.

Eik manquooli:
jiss ki subb sey achhi misaal science hai. Yeh dst b dst chaltaa hai. nQL hotaa hai..muntaquil honay kay ma` anoN main. Hur nai nasl pehloN kay kaam main izaafaa krtee hai yaa rdd krtee hai. iss ko world of will bhee kahaa gayaa hai.

doosri world of ideas hai.

Yeh ilm-e maaquool hua:
ya`aani jo ma`aquool maaloom ho (frd ko: yaa jamaat ko) aql main aajae , aur b`zaahir ghair-mantaqui hee lagay, mgaar ehsaas ko chhoo lai. iss zumray mein falsafaa yaa mazhab, yaa ilmul-kalaam, aur mauseequi vaghairaa aatay hain.

SameerJB aur Gill saheb anaar ko nutritional value kay ilaava uss kay mazay ko bhee pasand yaa naapasand krtay hongain.


Ishque dil main rahay, tO rusva ho
Lubb pay aey, tO raaz hao jaaey

SameerJB aur Gill saheb sey guzaarish hai kay iss shair kee gehrai aur geerai donoN pay khoob ghaur kraiN.

(Aplogies for urdu text. I found my english a little wanting to express a complex subject in simple terms..replies in english please)

Hamidm # 48,

I think we`re on shaky grounds when discussing what God is. You are perhaps debunking the concept of God as mentioned in many religions, and quite appropriately so. I`m with you too on that. Your reasoning perhaps is like Charles Darwin`s who debunked this concept of God as controlling everything & looking down on every individual.
He was quite clear in mentioning that he sees something divine in this evolutionary world of species. Albeit vehmently opposed to what the church preached God to be.
Frankly I find it ideal for individuals to undertake such an open minded enquiry in this subject. But then yes many mainstream religions would be serious impediments to such and endeavor.

Adios

Sameer # 52,

Interesting post.

Please don`t get offended, but I think you are playing this game by the rules laid down by folks 5000 years. If the cane can become snake, then God exists, is a reasoning used to lure the masses. A magician can use tricks like these and become prophet of God. An indian magician P.C Sarkar in fact challanged a Sai baba on the same premises.

I believe all of us humans need a source of comfort and security in this unkown and unpredcitable world. Some religions/ prophets appeal to people more than the others by virtue of comforting us with this assurance. And their assurance is derived from such miraculous acts and commands there after to follow them if they want to be saved. Whether or not such miracles happened, the fact remains that a majority of people are likely to believe it for the selfish reason of assuring themselves. I don`t mind such sense of security in people, if it be derived from any source they deem will remain irrefutable. And irrefutable it will always remain, because there is no way you or I could prove it or disprove it as well.
But the problem as is evident in todays world is, about crimes being comitted in the name of such a God or faith or religion. It would take the collective skepticism of humanity poured in one individual to debunk these fairy tales perhaps. But then were Siddharth Gautam and vivekananda not such individuals? We all know the results of their endeavor.

``The belief in the existence of god is due to religions and nothing else.``

That sums perhaps the vast majority of people`s basis of faith in God. Does remind of the opening line in Rigveda too, about Gods being born later than humans.
But then again, it has been the tendency of human race to follow one original thinker for a long time until the next one appears on scene. And if the next one is a sceptic, then scepticism becomes God too. There is no end to it.

``Would life be happier, prosperous, meaningful if there really is something called god?``

How could we answer that before knowing it exists or not and what difference that knowledge would make in our lives. Belief in God is different from ``experiencing`` it or knowing it. I`m sure most of the believers just believe without actually knowing first hand of its existence. They just believe what they are told by their religions. Religion becomes their God. The idea of searching has been trashed in the dustbin a long time back.

Adios

P.S: Hope this gets you started.

Sorry for using `inquiry` and `enquiry` interchangeably. `inquiry` is more correct, I think.

Sorry for using `inquiry` and `enquiry` interchangeably. `inquiry` is more correct, I think.

urstruly #58 Some of the statements you make are arbitrary. I`ll take one: ``The ideas that scientists have about man or his origin reduce the stature of human beings to that of microbes no more no less. `` - some things we do share with microbes, e.g. ingestion and excretion. Microbes ingest ``on the go``, we ingest in fancy restaurants. Microbes excrete ``on the road``, humans excrete in private settings. Science has thus taught us humility. We are not the center of the universe. Indeed we are a mere variation on life forms on earth. If this fact bothers those who think we humans are the prima donnas of the universe - tough!!

By extending our consciousness to realize this, science in fact lifts us above animals. The resemblance between a maulvi and an ape more than skin deep in this sense. (this sentence is designed to make increase chusni`s blood pressure).

One statement that you make betrays a need to study science more: Science is not restricted to what our five senses tell us, and a scientist does not need religion to conceive of things beyond these senses. I refer to logical inference, for which humans have fashioned tools in the form of mathematics and which have led humans (as i noted in my previous post) to conceive of things way beyond the reach of our senses long BEFORE any evidence of them was found. I am referring, e.g., to various subatomic particles, to various characteristics of light, to dimensions beyond the three plus time that we perceive. And in doing so, humans are doing exactly what the Quran tells us is the reason God created man to begin with - to learn about his creation. (This last sentence should increase hamidm`s blood pressure by about 12 points).