Do You Believe in God?

[Do you believe in God?]

Do you believe in God?

Yes

 63 (67.7%)

No

 30 (32.3%)

Total Members Voted: 72

[->Soon]

PROBABLY.  I THINK A55ISHNESS IS GENETIC

[Mr. Pink]

PROBABLY.  I THINK A55ISHNESS IS GENETIC

TITCR

[stc34]

No.  Regarding what's out there that science can't explain... the type of science regarding human life and complex theories of the universe's structure, etc. are barely a few decades old... or, if you want to go back to their absolute earliest roots, perhaps 150-200 years. These things might just take a little time.  It's not that science can't explain them, it's that science can't explain them yet.  I think a little perspective on the history of science is necessary in order to make claims about what it doesn't prove and what it has the potential to prove.  Science as we think of it today is still in its infancy.

When you compare theories of evolution, etc. to the theories asserted by the Bible, the Koran, or whatever else, do they not go a lot further towards explaining things?  

In fact, what firm evidence do any of these religions actually offer?

Discussing theories of evolution is really not answering the question.  For God to exist the Bible need not be true.  For God to exist evolution need not be false.

[stc34]

Can we have an "I don't know" option then?  I don't necessary believe...but I don't necessarily NOT believe

I'm theologically lazy

This post is really the best example of an agnostic.  I'm not being mean, I'm just responding to the endless debate over the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic".

[corbabe]

No.

[LitDoc]

Wrong. You have to have faith that repitition = "proof" or "conclusion." Just because something happens in such-and-such a way a zillion times in a row does not guarantee that it will happen that way time zillion-plus-one. Any good scientist will tell you this.

"Fact" is a sociocultural construct.

Edited to add: You are right, of course, to claim that X is a "fact" -- only because socioculturally we have agreed to call it one. But it is possible to imagine a society/culture that does not accept repeatability as proof; a repeatable experiment that still does not "prove" here in our own society/culture; situations in which a previously repeatable phenomenon no longer repeats; etc., etc. And on these grounds, I am saying you are "wrong" to call X a "fact," because, though we have socioculturally agreed in practice to call it one, the received meaning of the word "fact" (i.e. what we usually think we mean by it) does not hold up under scrutiny in this (or in nearly every) application of the word.

[NewYork]

yes.

[Alamo]

Wrong. You have to have faith that repitition = "proof" or "conclusion." Just because something happens in such-and-such a way a zillion times in a row does not guarantee that it will happen that way time zillion-plus-one. Any good scientist will tell you this.

"Fact" is a sociocultural construct.

Not to hijack, but why are you going to law school?  Everything I read from you, while extremely well thought-out, seems a bit esoteric for this field of study. 

[LitDoc]

Wrong. You have to have faith that repitition = "proof" or "conclusion." Just because something happens in such-and-such a way a zillion times in a row does not guarantee that it will happen that way time zillion-plus-one. Any good scientist will tell you this.

"Fact" is a sociocultural construct.

is that a fact?

so that the sun gives off light is a sociocultural construct?

The "sun" and "to give off" and "light" are all language-bound. Language is a sociocultural construct. So, yes, that the "sun" "gives off" "light" is a sociocultural construct.

Wrong. You have to have faith that repitition = "proof" or "conclusion." Just because something happens in such-and-such a way a zillion times in a row does not guarantee that it will happen that way time zillion-plus-one. Any good scientist will tell you this.

"Fact" is a sociocultural construct.

Not to hijack, but why are you going to law school?  Everything I read from you, while extremely well thought-out, seems a bit esoteric for this field of study. 

I'm certainly more interested in law-in-theory than I am in law-in-practice. That's why I'm primarily interested in a career in academia. But it's also worth noting that this discussion board is simply a fun place to hash out a lot of esoteric, theoretical stuff. It's not like we're gonna practice something via a discussion board. Is it?

Wrong. You have to have faith that repitition = "proof" or "conclusion." Just because something happens in such-and-such a way a zillion times in a row does not guarantee that it will happen that way time zillion-plus-one. Any good scientist will tell you this.

"Fact" is a sociocultural construct.

Unnecessary. 

Fact may very well be a sociocultural construct, but the same data indicates the same result no matter what the interpretations are.  That scientist will probably say that the repetition indicates that the experiment will probably occur in exactly the same manner again.  In that way, it's a positive extrapoltion of predictable behavior.

No, the same "data" doesn't "indicate" the same "result," regardless of interpretation, because interpretation is always already involved -- what constitutes "data" is a matter of interpretation; what constitutes "indication" is a matter of interpretation; what constitutes "result" is a matter of interpretation. Interpretation is always at the heart of all meaning/understanding, and interpretation is always already guided/shaped by sociocultural forces.

In our sociocultural context, repeatability improves predictability, and predictability has value, thus repeatability has value as a kind of "proof" or "evidence" of "fact" or "truth." But it is not hard to imagine a sociocultural context in which repeatability looks like inexplicable magic, and does nothing for predictability because "predictability" is a zero-value quality, and thus repeatability offers nothing by way of "proof" or "evidence" of "fact" or "truth."

[iFoughtTheLawAnd]

Wrong. You have to have faith that repitition = "proof" or "conclusion." Just because something happens in such-and-such a way a zillion times in a row does not guarantee that it will happen that way time zillion-plus-one. Any good scientist will tell you this.

"Fact" is a sociocultural construct.

Unnecessary. 

Fact may very well be a sociocultural construct, but the same data indicates the same result no matter what the interpretations are.  That scientist will probably say that the repetition indicates that the experiment will probably occur in exactly the same manner again.  In that way, it's a positive extrapoltion of predictable behavior.

Science, or at least science as it is produced through the scientific method, never really purports to uncover the ultimate fact. It only brings attention to that which seems to be so, or theories, until those theories can be proven false. The fact that we call certain concepts "laws" are only because they are theories that have, for centuries, been able to withstand falsification, and thus far seem to be so. Science can only deal with that which is testable and falsifiable, or things that we can engage with our senses. Since we tend to believe more easily those things we come into contact with our senses (i.e. that fire burns) than things that we don't (i.e. that God exists), I would think that science requires a lower burden of faith than capital "F" faith does. IMHO.