---To boil it down, assume that everything has a cause. But, if everything has to have a cause, then nothing could exist. So, an uncaused cause must exist.---
Ah, everything must have a cause. But it can't... so... it doesn't.
Okay, so there's no mandatory causlity (which seems to be QM's opinion anyway). Why does that demonstrate that there had to be one single cause for everything? Well, clearly, it doesn't. In fact, it simply admits that the universe could have been uncaused. End of story.
---Except that everything in the universe is in a causal chain. The fact that everything appears to follow a causal rule creates the paradox in the first place.---
Ah, but you want to continue the story. Except this isn't how it goes: first of all, not everything appears to follow a causal chain (QM). Second of all, if causes are no longer a _necessary_ characteristic of an observed thing, then we can only infer a causal chain when we have evidence of both the cause and the effect. We could claim that the universe needs a cause... but Aquinas' own premise makes that claim into groundless speculation, not a necessary proof. With his logic, the inference of the causal chain can stop at whatever point we lack evidence of a further a cause... and of course "evidence" was exactly what Aquinas lacked (as we still lack), and was trying to prove.
---Really? In addition to being an ass, you have also obviously not read the fourth and fifth proofs, which talk about perfection and intelligence respectively.---
I have read the 4th and 5th, and they do not fill the gaps of the 1st argument at all. In fact, they don't even stand on their own either. Do 5 failed proofs add up to a knock-down argument? Since when? There's a good reason why Aquinas' proofs aren't taught in logic classes: unless as perfect examples of trying to create necessary proofs, but forgetting to deal with any of the alternatives, or even the implications of your own premises.
Interestingly enough, the universe as a whole might once have been subject to QM, which means that, if QM is correct in guessing that particle/anti-particle creations are causeless... well you see where this speculation is going (it's always much nicer to speculate with science, instead of flawed Aristotelian logic)
I think parents should be allowed to decide EVERYTHING that kids are exposed to. But then, why not just restrict the sale of _everything_ to minors? This law targets some things that some people want to make more difficult to get: by if we alow this basic principle, then why not allow the banning of sale to minors of anything someone doesn't like? I don't want my kids eating tons of refined sugar, which surely poses more harm to their well being than a video game. Should the law uphold a ban on the sale of candy to children?
The point is, what is the legal/ethical rationale behind this sort of law? And are you sure that it's not simply a case for special treatment to make YOUR parenting prefences easier, even though you would fight like hell to keep MY parenting preferences harder to inforce?
It's not at all clear that it's somehow wrong that people might want to work for more than eight hours a day. If you like your job, or if you'd like to make more money, or even if you'd like to be more competative as a worker, why is that an unacceptable choice?
---No it doesn't. Show me where it says that? It says nothing moves itself. ---
I.e., a thing cannot be its own cause. However, this doesn't rule out uncaused things.
---. IT can't end at the universe because the universe is made up of matter which is in potency to being moved, and IS being moved.---
Oh, please do tell me where the universe is moving. Is it traveling to Cape Cod for the weekend?
---Since it moving, and (we're assuming the argument is logical like you said we were assuming), there must be something else in the chain that started IT moving, so we're back to needing an UNMOVED mover to get the whole thing started.---
Dumbass. Unmoved does not mean unmoving. It simply means that it didn't have an antecedent cause. How could a motionless, actionless thing DO anything, let alone be a personal god that smites people with boils for sticking their lengthy bits in the wrong fleshy places? If all you are saying is that an inanimate object caused the universe, good for you.
---Go ahead and apply Occam's Razor. You are positing a house without a builder. Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that what is necessary for the house to come into being is a builder.---
Do they teach idiocy at seminary school, or wherever they teach you that "Occam's Razor" says "to explain something of given complexity, simply posit something even MORE complex and inexplicable as its cause"? All that is of interest here is that if you are going to end the chain with "it was caused by god, who needs no explanation" then there is even LESS reason to need a reason for the universe's existence.
---By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.---
If there can be an uncaused cause, then there is no reason that anything _has_ to have a cause, let alone the universe.
---By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.---
Can't find that argument in the proof. But then, Aquinas wasn't so stupid as to simply beg the question with a "by defintion" proof. And are you arguing that god is no longer active, and never was?
---Second, all the proof says is that at some point in the past(causally, not temporally), the chain of causality has to end. So, if there were any intermediate steps between "the universe" and "God," it still wouldn't affect the result of the proof one whit.---
I'm not sure where I talked about intermediate steps: what I pointed out was the there is no reason that the chain needs to extend past the universe itself. Even if it does, there is absolutely no need for the uncaused cause to have any of the properties of a god: it could just as easily be an entirely naturalistic (in the sense of simply an extremely simplistic thing) object.
---Third, your graphic is cute, but is an evasion of the first cause principal.---
Don't see how, specially when you can't be bothered to explain why, if a god doesn't require a cause, the universe would. The universe can quite easily be said to not be in motion.
---Finally, you apparently didn't read the full set of proofs. There are other characteristics which are subjects of the other permutations of the proofs.---
You are a liar. Each "way" stands or falls on its own, and they all end with a similar unsupported inference of the form "and this is what we call god" when its proved nothing of the sort.
Yes. The argument denies its own premise. It denies that there can be a uncaused thing, concludes that the universe must have a cause, and then posits an uncaused thing: god. The argument shoots itself in the foot before even getting out of the gate.
Worse, even if valid, his proof would simply not a necessary one, almost by definition. If the chain of causality must simply end somewhere, then why not the universe itself (since we have evidence of THAT existing already)? If Aquinas can posit a unknown step beyond, that has no steps before it, there's no reason why I can't simply posit that the sequence ends a step before it. And there's litterally no comeback Aquinas can make, because he's set things up so that this move is totally acceptable.
And of course, the "and this we call God" bit is nonsense. The ONLY characteristic necessary of a first cause is that it once existed without being caused, and caused the universe. It 1) doen't have to still exist 2) doesn't have to have a will 3) doesn't have to have any connection at all with Aquinas' idea of God. So the even if his argument weren't already bunk, it isn't even marginally capable of proving that the first cause is God.
What about it? The second law doesn't prevent order. You've been reading too much Kent Hovind.
The second law simply tells us about heat loss. If extra energy is injected from somewhere, a given system will lose steam over time. It doesn't rule out things being put together in the first place (say, atoms forming under intense heat), or things being put together and then sustained by energy transfer (i.e., the sun and the earth).
The way you seem to think, it's liek you're saying that the second law denies that a chemical reaction can ever take place to form a molecule. That's nonsense: the second law disallows no such thing: all it points out is that such a thing will not be able to happen without losing some energy in the process.
Not to get into the silly debate about the 10s of thousands supposedly killed but I just thought I'd point out several things.
First off, even if journalists had had free reign, they never could have gotten anything approaching a meaningful causality count under those conditions. Even the NA or the Taliban probably couldn't have. The U.S. military counts, provided they aren't fudged up or down for some purpose, are the best chance of a fairly accurate count.
Second off, U.S. journalists WEREN'T very active during the campaign, and they were basically told to sit tight by the military. However, there isn't much a causal relationship between those two points. It wasn't a matter of the military powerfully hamstringing their efforts: anyone who really tried or cared had near free reign. There was an excellent article on Salon about a famous travel writer who had been all over Afghanistan during the campaign visiting a huge gathering of reporters that were basically hanging out where the military told them to stay. When the travel reporter told them that he had basically gone where he pleased, they were flabbergasted: they hadn't even thought to try.
So it's more a matter of complacency than anything else. Reporters and the U.S. media have slipped into a rather standard routine: most of the media basically just waiting to be handfed exclusives and info, while just a few field teams get spotty "exclusive" footage basically from the sidelines: butnot enough to get a good sense of much. This is just cheaper and safer overall.
Again, no. Once the universe is sufficiently large (and it is in the case of U.S. pop), it becomes irrelevant. Look in the standard equation for error in any statistics textbook: notice that there's no "universe size" variable?
---Faith is believing in something (assuming it to be true) even though you cannot prove it.---
You've entirely missed the cvore distinction. Do you understand the concept of outlining assumptions? No scientist claims that causlity is "true." If you deny causality, all a scientist can say is "well, you're well within your epistemological rights, and my theories are uselss to you." Faith asserts that certain things ARE true, period. Big difference.
---Based on your reasoning, I could say that Christianity has no faith, just assumptions that God exists.---
No, because Christians believe it to be TRUE, not just an axiom.
---We can believe that God does not exist (atheism), but AFAIK, we cannot prove that.---
No one needs to believe THAT god doesn't not exist. If you claim such a being really exists, the burden of proof is on you. At least scientists have honesty to admit that they cannot say that causality is true, and are merely taking it as a given for the sake of empirical discussion.
That is simply wish fulfillment, not scholarship. It is trivially easy to deny that ANY religious document has inconsistencies: Quran defenders are just as good at this sort of thing as faithdefenders. The fact that you'd cite Josephus and Tertullian just goes to show how little proof it takes to convince you of your beliefs (while everyone else must pass an impossible test). Few people think the passage in Josephus is genuine, especially considering that the only copy in which it appears came from a christian who was on record saying that it was just to lie to advance the faith. The Tertullian quote does nothing more than record the fact that Christians exist, and here is what they believe. But no one ever claimed that Christians didn't exist. Regardless, both of these accounts are so minor as references that they can't even begin to substantiate the extrordinary claims made in the Bible. You believe on faith, and that's okay. But don't try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.
You seem a little confused. The Big Bang theory isn't exactly a theory of the "origin" of the universe: it doesn't go that far back. But I don't think there's a cosmologist working today that doesn't agree that the basic foundations of the theory are correct: it's simply the details of how it all got started that people don't agree upon.
Mao and Stalin wanted religion wiped out because it stood in the way of their complete social control over society. They both happened to be atheists, but this is no more relevant than that they both happened to be men. Mao and Stalin had philosophies, evil philosophies. They were indeed atheistic philosophies. But this says nothing about "atheism" which isn't itself even a philosophy, but rather a term to describe the LACK of theistic tenets in a philosophy. Some philosophies are atheistic, some theistic, and some of both types are good, and some evil. Conclusions should not drawn about either atheism or theism in general. But there is an additional silliness about claiming that atheism is to blame, in that atheism is not itself a philosophy.
---Think about it... "Sun Signs" are based around the Sun's position, which also influences our length-of-day and seasons and temperatures. It's plausable that length of days, seasons and temps can influence an embryo's development. So our astrology friends could have valid observations but just be totally wrong on the causation.---
No. Because their observations are based strictly on the time of birth, not the time spent in the womb. Besides, astrologers don't even take into account the procession of the earth (the wobble in its orbit). They aren't just wrong about causality: their predictions don't work, and their claims about basic astronomy are just plain wrong.
---The size of your sample data must related to the total number of U.S. Citizens and the confidence level you want to achieve with your statements.---
No. Sample size confidence is not a factor of total population size. It is a factor of the sample size and the standard deviation. Sufficiently large Ns are good no matter how big the population gets.
---Astrology == applied astronomy What is there not to understand?---
Applied how, to do what? Most astrologers don't even take into account astronomical procession, meaning that all their star signs are off by a month or two.
Let's be clear here. Appeals to authority are not inherently bad things. The fallacy is an inappropriate use of authority. Science textbooks appeal to expertise and authorities, sure, but the whole point is that these people have no _ultimate_ special standing: in the end, their work MUST stand entirely on its own. Any valid appeal to authority must, upon challange, be able to supply the authority's evidence and rationale. This is just what science is set up to do.
Religious faith, however, has no such mechanism. The ultimate authority (god) is simply supposed to be accepted as authoritative even if no reasons are ever given, merely because he's god. That's an illegitimate appeal to authority: one that gets even sillier when one appeals to the authority of god for proof of god's existence.
---Documented proof of the existance of a man who could cure the blind. Raise the dead. Heal a cripple, etc.---
If we accept your documented proof, then we must also accept the Qu-ran as documented proof as well. And the Greek myths. Which is right? I dunno: maybe you need to narrow your specifications for "documented proof" a little.
---If there is no God. And we are all evolved from ameoba and what not. In all honesty, if science is right and blah blah blah, when we die. Like a computer our mind will just turn to blackness. Nothing. A void. Not thought processes, nothing. Seems to me, that would suck. then again it couldn't realy suck because I wouldn't know it.---
And so, because you think it might suck, it can't be true?
---Besides... here are two more interesting arguements that cause science to fail.---
Wow. You've just disproved science (whatever THAT means). How come this incredible advance in human knowledge hasn't been announced on CNN yet?
---Science even has its own set of beliefs that all scientists take on faith.---
Bull. They are not taken on faith at all: they are explicitly declared axioms, basic assumptions. You wont find a reputable scientist anywhere who claims that they can prove the concept of causality. We just assume it because it's something fairly basic that almost everyone is willing to grant as an assumption, for the point of discussion.
Speaking of LSD, has anyone read Kerry Mullis' "Dancing Naked in the Mindfields"? He makes all sorts of claims, for ESP, aliens, astrology, etc. But my favorite was the one where he ridicules science for not taking seriously alien abductions, when he claims as evidence that one actually happened to him. He describes going out into his backyard with a flashlight, seeing a glowing racoon that talked to him, and then loosing track of several hours of his life. He assumes the was abducted.
However, that's not the funny part. The funny part was that he had just gotten through, in the previous chapter, telling the story of how he once took so much acid and other drugs that he nearly died.
---Okay, so I perceived something that did not come in a normal manner... that is, through one or more of my five senses.---
But is that really a fair characterization, or does it include assumptions? I think of things all the time that do not come from my senses in any normal manner: my imagination. But this doesn't prove that I percieved them. And if something I imagined corresponds with some event that happens in the outside world, that's not proof that I percieved it, certainly not proof that my perception did not come about via my senses.
There are many other possibilities to consider than simply that I was radioed information bypassing my senses.
I agreed with much of your post, about people missing the difference between belief and knowledge. However, I do disagree with this:
---Science can be a wonderful provider of truth, but it's not the end all to truth.---
Unless you mean to use the word truth in a metaphorical sense ("truth to me"), this statement is just plain wrong. Saying that something is "truth" is basically shorthand for saying you have a reason and evidence to call it that. Without that underpinning, all one has is a belief, a claim. Not a case for truth.
No. Most scientists believe in a "God" person. Ones belief in something that cannot be proven is not a misunderstanding of science, but rather just what it is: a belief. Science is a method for determining the truth of propositions about existence. But that doesn't rule out people's ability to believe without proof. Their belief may not be scientifically valid, but so what? It's just what they believe.
Neither should be ridiculed. However, neither should be accepted as scientific fact without evidence. That statement WAS flamebait. Most people's religious convictions are built on things heartfelt, central to their humanity. Whether their beliefs are empricially true is it's own question, but few people "choose" to believe what they believe, and they don't deserve ridicule for something that they cannot deny in themselves.
---But I do believe in ESP, 'cause I've experienced it. Certainly not commonly, and definitely not in any controllable fashion, but it's happened.---
I don't doubt that something has happened. But isn't concluding that it's "ESP" jumping the gun? The unexplained remains that: unexplained, until we can get some good idea of exactly what happened, and how. You might well be ignoring important explanations for the phenomena you experienced that would give us a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
Slashdot Mirror
---To boil it down, assume that everything has a cause. But, if everything has to have a cause, then nothing could exist. So, an uncaused cause must exist.---
Ah, everything must have a cause. But it can't... so... it doesn't.
Okay, so there's no mandatory causlity (which seems to be QM's opinion anyway). Why does that demonstrate that there had to be one single cause for everything? Well, clearly, it doesn't. In fact, it simply admits that the universe could have been uncaused. End of story.
---Except that everything in the universe is in a causal chain. The fact that everything appears to follow a causal rule creates the paradox in the first place.---
Ah, but you want to continue the story. Except this isn't how it goes: first of all, not everything appears to follow a causal chain (QM). Second of all, if causes are no longer a _necessary_ characteristic of an observed thing, then we can only infer a causal chain when we have evidence of both the cause and the effect. We could claim that the universe needs a cause... but Aquinas' own premise makes that claim into groundless speculation, not a necessary proof. With his logic, the inference of the causal chain can stop at whatever point we lack evidence of a further a cause... and of course "evidence" was exactly what Aquinas lacked (as we still lack), and was trying to prove.
---Really? In addition to being an ass, you have also obviously not read the fourth and fifth proofs, which talk about perfection and intelligence respectively.---
I have read the 4th and 5th, and they do not fill the gaps of the 1st argument at all. In fact, they don't even stand on their own either. Do 5 failed proofs add up to a knock-down argument? Since when?
There's a good reason why Aquinas' proofs aren't taught in logic classes: unless as perfect examples of trying to create necessary proofs, but forgetting to deal with any of the alternatives, or even the implications of your own premises.
Interestingly enough, the universe as a whole might once have been subject to QM, which means that, if QM is correct in guessing that particle/anti-particle creations are causeless... well you see where this speculation is going (it's always much nicer to speculate with science, instead of flawed Aristotelian logic)
I think parents should be allowed to decide EVERYTHING that kids are exposed to. But then, why not just restrict the sale of _everything_ to minors? This law targets some things that some people want to make more difficult to get: by if we alow this basic principle, then why not allow the banning of sale to minors of anything someone doesn't like? I don't want my kids eating tons of refined sugar, which surely poses more harm to their well being than a video game. Should the law uphold a ban on the sale of candy to children?
The point is, what is the legal/ethical rationale behind this sort of law? And are you sure that it's not simply a case for special treatment to make YOUR parenting prefences easier, even though you would fight like hell to keep MY parenting preferences harder to inforce?
It's not at all clear that it's somehow wrong that people might want to work for more than eight hours a day. If you like your job, or if you'd like to make more money, or even if you'd like to be more competative as a worker, why is that an unacceptable choice?
---No it doesn't. Show me where it says that? It says nothing moves itself. ---
I.e., a thing cannot be its own cause. However, this doesn't rule out uncaused things.
---. IT can't end at the universe because the universe is made up of matter which is in potency to being moved, and IS being moved.---
Oh, please do tell me where the universe is moving. Is it traveling to Cape Cod for the weekend?
---Since it moving, and (we're assuming the argument is logical like you said we were assuming), there must be something else in the chain that started IT moving, so we're back to needing an UNMOVED mover to get the whole thing started.---
Dumbass. Unmoved does not mean unmoving. It simply means that it didn't have an antecedent cause. How could a motionless, actionless thing DO anything, let alone be a personal god that smites people with boils for sticking their lengthy bits in the wrong fleshy places? If all you are saying is that an inanimate object caused the universe, good for you.
---Go ahead and apply Occam's Razor. You are positing a house without a builder. Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that what is necessary for the house to come into being is a builder.---
Do they teach idiocy at seminary school, or wherever they teach you that "Occam's Razor" says "to explain something of given complexity, simply posit something even MORE complex and inexplicable as its cause"? All that is of interest here is that if you are going to end the chain with "it was caused by god, who needs no explanation" then there is even LESS reason to need a reason for the universe's existence.
---By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.---
If there can be an uncaused cause, then there is no reason that anything _has_ to have a cause, let alone the universe.
---By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.---
Can't find that argument in the proof. But then, Aquinas wasn't so stupid as to simply beg the question with a "by defintion" proof. And are you arguing that god is no longer active, and never was?
---Second, all the proof says is that at some point in the past(causally, not temporally), the chain of causality has to end. So, if there were any intermediate steps between "the universe" and "God," it still wouldn't affect the result of the proof one whit.---
I'm not sure where I talked about intermediate steps: what I pointed out was the there is no reason that the chain needs to extend past the universe itself. Even if it does, there is absolutely no need for the uncaused cause to have any of the properties of a god: it could just as easily be an entirely naturalistic (in the sense of simply an extremely simplistic thing) object.
---Third, your graphic is cute, but is an evasion of the first cause principal.---
Don't see how, specially when you can't be bothered to explain why, if a god doesn't require a cause, the universe would. The universe can quite easily be said to not be in motion.
---Finally, you apparently didn't read the full set of proofs. There are other characteristics which are subjects of the other permutations of the proofs.---
You are a liar. Each "way" stands or falls on its own, and they all end with a similar unsupported inference of the form "and this is what we call god" when its proved nothing of the sort.
Yes. The argument denies its own premise. It denies that there can be a uncaused thing, concludes that the universe must have a cause, and then posits an uncaused thing: god. The argument shoots itself in the foot before even getting out of the gate.
Worse, even if valid, his proof would simply not a necessary one, almost by definition. If the chain of causality must simply end somewhere, then why not the universe itself (since we have evidence of THAT existing already)? If Aquinas can posit a unknown step beyond, that has no steps before it, there's no reason why I can't simply posit that the sequence ends a step before it. And there's litterally no comeback Aquinas can make, because he's set things up so that this move is totally acceptable.
This graphic helps explain my point: Occam's Razor
And of course, the "and this we call God" bit is nonsense. The ONLY characteristic necessary of a first cause is that it once existed without being caused, and caused the universe. It 1) doen't have to still exist 2) doesn't have to have a will 3) doesn't have to have any connection at all with Aquinas' idea of God. So the even if his argument weren't already bunk, it isn't even marginally capable of proving that the first cause is God.
What about it? The second law doesn't prevent order. You've been reading too much Kent Hovind. The second law simply tells us about heat loss. If extra energy is injected from somewhere, a given system will lose steam over time. It doesn't rule out things being put together in the first place (say, atoms forming under intense heat), or things being put together and then sustained by energy transfer (i.e., the sun and the earth).
The way you seem to think, it's liek you're saying that the second law denies that a chemical reaction can ever take place to form a molecule. That's nonsense: the second law disallows no such thing: all it points out is that such a thing will not be able to happen without losing some energy in the process.
Not to get into the silly debate about the 10s of thousands supposedly killed but I just thought I'd point out several things.
First off, even if journalists had had free reign, they never could have gotten anything approaching a meaningful causality count under those conditions. Even the NA or the Taliban probably couldn't have. The U.S. military counts, provided they aren't fudged up or down for some purpose, are the best chance of a fairly accurate count.
Second off, U.S. journalists WEREN'T very active during the campaign, and they were basically told to sit tight by the military. However, there isn't much a causal relationship between those two points. It wasn't a matter of the military powerfully hamstringing their efforts: anyone who really tried or cared had near free reign. There was an excellent article on Salon about a famous travel writer who had been all over Afghanistan during the campaign visiting a huge gathering of reporters that were basically hanging out where the military told them to stay. When the travel reporter told them that he had basically gone where he pleased, they were flabbergasted: they hadn't even thought to try.
So it's more a matter of complacency than anything else. Reporters and the U.S. media have slipped into a rather standard routine: most of the media basically just waiting to be handfed exclusives and info, while just a few field teams get spotty "exclusive" footage basically from the sidelines: butnot enough to get a good sense of much. This is just cheaper and safer overall.
Again, no. Once the universe is sufficiently large (and it is in the case of U.S. pop), it becomes irrelevant. Look in the standard equation for error in any statistics textbook: notice that there's no "universe size" variable?
---Faith is believing in something (assuming it to be true) even though you cannot prove it.---
You've entirely missed the cvore distinction. Do you understand the concept of outlining assumptions? No scientist claims that causlity is "true." If you deny causality, all a scientist can say is "well, you're well within your epistemological rights, and my theories are uselss to you." Faith asserts that certain things ARE true, period. Big difference.
---Based on your reasoning, I could say that Christianity has no faith, just assumptions that God exists.---
No, because Christians believe it to be TRUE, not just an axiom.
---We can believe that God does not exist (atheism), but AFAIK, we cannot prove that.---
No one needs to believe THAT god doesn't not exist. If you claim such a being really exists, the burden of proof is on you. At least scientists have honesty to admit that they cannot say that causality is true, and are merely taking it as a given for the sake of empirical discussion.
That is simply wish fulfillment, not scholarship. It is trivially easy to deny that ANY religious document has inconsistencies: Quran defenders are just as good at this sort of thing as faithdefenders. The fact that you'd cite Josephus and Tertullian just goes to show how little proof it takes to convince you of your beliefs (while everyone else must pass an impossible test). Few people think the passage in Josephus is genuine, especially considering that the only copy in which it appears came from a christian who was on record saying that it was just to lie to advance the faith. The Tertullian quote does nothing more than record the fact that Christians exist, and here is what they believe. But no one ever claimed that Christians didn't exist. Regardless, both of these accounts are so minor as references that they can't even begin to substantiate the extrordinary claims made in the Bible. You believe on faith, and that's okay. But don't try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.
You seem a little confused. The Big Bang theory isn't exactly a theory of the "origin" of the universe: it doesn't go that far back. But I don't think there's a cosmologist working today that doesn't agree that the basic foundations of the theory are correct: it's simply the details of how it all got started that people don't agree upon.
Mao and Stalin wanted religion wiped out because it stood in the way of their complete social control over society. They both happened to be atheists, but this is no more relevant than that they both happened to be men.
Mao and Stalin had philosophies, evil philosophies. They were indeed atheistic philosophies. But this says nothing about "atheism" which isn't itself even a philosophy, but rather a term to describe the LACK of theistic tenets in a philosophy. Some philosophies are atheistic, some theistic, and some of both types are good, and some evil. Conclusions should not drawn about either atheism or theism in general. But there is an additional silliness about claiming that atheism is to blame, in that atheism is not itself a philosophy.
---Think about it... "Sun Signs" are based around the Sun's position, which also influences our length-of-day and seasons and temperatures. It's plausable that length of days, seasons and temps can influence an embryo's development. So our astrology friends could have valid observations but just be totally wrong on the causation.---
No. Because their observations are based strictly on the time of birth, not the time spent in the womb. Besides, astrologers don't even take into account the procession of the earth (the wobble in its orbit). They aren't just wrong about causality: their predictions don't work, and their claims about basic astronomy are just plain wrong.
---The size of your sample data must related to the total number of U.S. Citizens and the confidence level you want to achieve with your statements.---
No. Sample size confidence is not a factor of total population size. It is a factor of the sample size and the standard deviation. Sufficiently large Ns are good no matter how big the population gets.
---Astrology == applied astronomy
What is there not to understand?---
Applied how, to do what? Most astrologers don't even take into account astronomical procession, meaning that all their star signs are off by a month or two.
Let's be clear here. Appeals to authority are not inherently bad things. The fallacy is an inappropriate use of authority. Science textbooks appeal to expertise and authorities, sure, but the whole point is that these people have no _ultimate_ special standing: in the end, their work MUST stand entirely on its own. Any valid appeal to authority must, upon challange, be able to supply the authority's evidence and rationale. This is just what science is set up to do.
Religious faith, however, has no such mechanism. The ultimate authority (god) is simply supposed to be accepted as authoritative even if no reasons are ever given, merely because he's god. That's an illegitimate appeal to authority: one that gets even sillier when one appeals to the authority of god for proof of god's existence.
---Documented proof of the existance of a man who could cure the blind. Raise the dead. Heal a cripple, etc.---
If we accept your documented proof, then we must also accept the Qu-ran as documented proof as well. And the Greek myths. Which is right? I dunno: maybe you need to narrow your specifications for "documented proof" a little.
---If there is no God. And we are all evolved from ameoba and what not. In all honesty, if science is right and blah blah blah, when we die. Like a computer our mind will just turn to blackness. Nothing. A void. Not thought processes, nothing. Seems to me, that would suck. then again it couldn't realy suck because I wouldn't know it.---
And so, because you think it might suck, it can't be true?
---Besides... here are two more interesting arguements that cause science to fail.---
Wow. You've just disproved science (whatever THAT means). How come this incredible advance in human knowledge hasn't been announced on CNN yet?
---Science even has its own set of beliefs that all scientists take on faith.---
Bull. They are not taken on faith at all: they are explicitly declared axioms, basic assumptions. You wont find a reputable scientist anywhere who claims that they can prove the concept of causality. We just assume it because it's something fairly basic that almost everyone is willing to grant as an assumption, for the point of discussion.
Speaking of LSD, has anyone read Kerry Mullis' "Dancing Naked in the Mindfields"? He makes all sorts of claims, for ESP, aliens, astrology, etc. But my favorite was the one where he ridicules science for not taking seriously alien abductions, when he claims as evidence that one actually happened to him. He describes going out into his backyard with a flashlight, seeing a glowing racoon that talked to him, and then loosing track of several hours of his life. He assumes the was abducted.
However, that's not the funny part. The funny part was that he had just gotten through, in the previous chapter, telling the story of how he once took so much acid and other drugs that he nearly died.
---Okay, so I perceived something that did not come in a normal manner... that is, through one or more of my five senses.---
But is that really a fair characterization, or does it include assumptions? I think of things all the time that do not come from my senses in any normal manner: my imagination. But this doesn't prove that I percieved them. And if something I imagined corresponds with some event that happens in the outside world, that's not proof that I percieved it, certainly not proof that my perception did not come about via my senses.
There are many other possibilities to consider than simply that I was radioed information bypassing my senses.
I agreed with much of your post, about people missing the difference between belief and knowledge. However, I do disagree with this:
---Science can be a wonderful provider of truth, but it's not the end all to truth.---
Unless you mean to use the word truth in a metaphorical sense ("truth to me"), this statement is just plain wrong. Saying that something is "truth" is basically shorthand for saying you have a reason and evidence to call it that. Without that underpinning, all one has is a belief, a claim. Not a case for truth.
No. Most scientists believe in a "God" person. Ones belief in something that cannot be proven is not a misunderstanding of science, but rather just what it is: a belief. Science is a method for determining the truth of propositions about existence. But that doesn't rule out people's ability to believe without proof. Their belief may not be scientifically valid, but so what? It's just what they believe.
Neither should be ridiculed. However, neither should be accepted as scientific fact without evidence. That statement WAS flamebait. Most people's religious convictions are built on things heartfelt, central to their humanity. Whether their beliefs are empricially true is it's own question, but few people "choose" to believe what they believe, and they don't deserve ridicule for something that they cannot deny in themselves.
---But I do believe in ESP, 'cause I've experienced it. Certainly not commonly, and definitely not in any controllable fashion, but it's happened.---
I don't doubt that something has happened. But isn't concluding that it's "ESP" jumping the gun? The unexplained remains that: unexplained, until we can get some good idea of exactly what happened, and how. You might well be ignoring important explanations for the phenomena you experienced that would give us a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us.