• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Hates Creationism

how did you come to know this basic fact of the universe? Can you prove it?

To extend your observation beyond the span of human activity on our planet, you do need science(cosmology) and observation(optics) to prove it. Otherwise, I'll tell you that billions of people can tell you that they can trust science to be the same today as tomorrow.
 
To extend your observation beyond the span of human activity on our planet, you do need science(cosmology) and observation(optics) to prove it. Otherwise, I'll tell you that billions of people can tell you that they can trust science to be the same today as tomorrow.

to be clear I am not arguing that science cannot or should not be trusted. Just that science cannot be the foundation for trusting in science. It seems like you are conceding this.

It would be the same as saying I have faith in God because God exists.
 
to be clear I am not arguing that science cannot or should not be trusted. Just that science cannot be the foundation for trusting in science. It seems like you are conceding this.

It would be the same as saying I have faith in God because God exists.

Of course you aren't. You would be an idiot to think that science could not be trusted.

I still firmly believe that there is a difference between scientific expectations and religious faith.
 
ipity I get your point, but I guess I would argue that those things still require some level of blind faith. Which goes back to my thoughts that I think faith is an essential part of man. I think we all put our faith in different things, but are all still people of "faith"
 
Of course you aren't. You would be an idiot to think that science could not be trusted.

I still firmly believe that there is a difference between scientific expectations and religious faith.

Of course you do. But that difference rests on the fact that you view the reasons for trusting science as having far greater merit than those for believing in a supernatural being. The difference is not that one belief is based on evidence and the other is not. They are the same insomuch as they cannot be proven through observation.
 
That's not the religious faith some of us are talking about. Faith has a couple definitions. From dictionary.com:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: "faith in another's ability."
2. belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

To me, you're invoking faith #1. Your boss trusted you because he knows you. You hope you make a difference because you understand what you're doing and have a plan. Farmers believe rain will come because it has rained in the past. Fishermen believe they'll catch something because there are fish in the water that are attracted to their bait. The hunter knows the herds will return to water because otherwise they will die.

One of the biggest parts of my journey from Christianity to Agnosticism was realizing that religious faith (faith #2), unlike so many other relevant parts of the Bible, had no place in my life. There's not a single decision I would make completely void of evidence or experience. Your boss didn't choose someone to send to Africa by picking a name from the phone book in the same way that the farmers, fishermen, and hunters don't sit in their homes and pray for baskets of food to appear on their doorstep when they awake in the morning. They have reason to believe (and hope, if that's where the choice of words differ) that what they're doing is going to work.

Hope that clarifies things a little!

Also, I should add, it's great to have your perspective in the conversation and I hope your work is going well.

religious faith is a lot more of #1 than it is of #2.
 
ipity I get your point, but I guess I would argue that those things still require some level of blind faith. Which goes back to my thoughts that I think faith is an essential part of man. I think we all put our faith in different things, but are all still people of "faith"

I think you are basically watering down the definition of faith. I would not like to be labeled a person of faith because I don't think, as we already discussed in this thread, that my faith in something that has a probability of 99.9999999% is equal to something that has a probability of 00.0000001%. Might gravity not work tomorrow? Possibly. Will tomorrow Yahweh/Allah/God appear on Earthh? Possibly. Both are faith by your incredibly broad definition but one is inherently unlike the other.
 
I think you are basically watering down the definition of faith. I would not like to be labeled a person of faith because I don't think, as we already discussed in this thread, that my faith in something that has a probability of 99.9999999% is equal to something that has a probability of 00.0000001%. Might gravity not work tomorrow? Possibly. Will tomorrow Yahweh/Allah/God appear on Earthh? Possibly. Both are faith by your incredibly broad definition but one is inherently unlike the other.

No serious religious person believes either of those two things. Faith does not imply uncertainty. I am 100% certain there is a God just as I am 100% certain that gravity will work tomorrow. Each of those certainties requires a leap of faith not backed by science or probability.
 
No serious religious person believes either of those two things. Faith does not imply uncertainty. I am 100% certain there is a God just as I am 100% certain that gravity will work tomorrow. Each of those certainties requires a leap of faith not backed by science or probability.

One we observe happening millions of times each day, and the other is based on some 2,000 year old book. Clearly equivalent.
 
One we observe happening millions of times each day, and the other is based on some 2,000 year old book. Clearly equivalent.

If you are going to jump in on this discussion at least go back and read the thread. I'm not going to go back and rehash the entire argument but I'll give you a brief summary.

In order to prove that gravity will work tomorrow you need two premises to be true. 1. Gravity has always worked in the past and 2. The future will resemble the past. Our observations prove #1, they cannot prove #2.

If we are defining faith as "belief that is not based on scientific observation" and premise #2 cannot be proven by scientific observation, then accepting premise #2 requires faith.
 
The fact that the belief in an omnipotent power is believed the same amount of gravity occurring tomorrow tells me all I need to know about how this thread has devolved.
 
Yes, but you create a ridiculous jump in logic when you equate something that requires an infinitesimally small amount of faith (that the laws of gravity which have worked every day of known existence of the universe will suddenly stop working), with something that requires pretty much total and complete faith (that some unseen supernatural being exists who only revealed himself to man according to ancient religious texts), and then conclude that both are the same.

They are not the same, not even close. If those mental gymnastics make you feel better about your faith, then have at it, but I don't think your take has been very compelling to anybody.
 
Yes, but you create a ridiculous jump in logic when you equate something that requires an infinitesimally small amount of faith (that the laws of gravity which have worked every day of known existence of the universe will suddenly stop working), with something that requires pretty much total and complete faith (that some unseen supernatural being exists who only revealed himself to man according to ancient religious texts), and then conclude that both are the same.

They are not the same, not even close. If those mental gymnastics make you feel better about your faith, then have at it, but I don't think your take has been very compelling to anybody.

there is no such thing as a small or large amount of faith. Faith is belief without scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence that can be used to suggest that the future will resemble the past. There is no probability to be calculated. It is a leap of faith to accept premise # 2.

If my "take" has not been compelling it is because I am not defining my terms in a way people can understand or people are denying logic.
 
the fact that you refer to an infinitesimally small amount of faith leads me to believe that you are still holding on to the probability of something happening tomorrow. Such a probability can only be calculated based on scientific observations. The premise that the future will resemble the past cannot be proven using scientific observations without the argument becoming circular.

Accepting that premise requires faith and absolutely noone has a problem accepting it. Faith in premise #2 and Faith in God are certainly not the same thing. But they both are faith.
 
Of course there is scientific evidence to suggest the future will resemble the past. Yesterday when I woke up gravity worked and it had always worked before. Every day before that when I woke up gravity worked also. So at millions of points in my life, the future has resembled the past regarding the laws of gravity. That is strong evidence that #2 is accurate that requires really no faith at all.

Is it conceivable that something would happen to the universe that would change the laws of the universe such as colliding with another universe? Yes, it is conceivable.

I could turn into a plate of spaghetti tomorrow too, but I don't think that the belief that I will be human tomorrow really requires what I would consider "faith".
 
Last edited:
Of course there is scientific evidence to suggest the future will resemble the past. Yesterday when I woke up gravity worked and it had always worked before. Every day before that when I woke up gravity worked also. So at millions of points in my life, the future has resembled the past regarding the laws of gravity. That is strong evidence that #2 is accurate that requires really no faith at all.

That is a circular argument. You are saying that the future will resemble the past, because in the past the future resembled the past. You need a second premise, however, to logically get from 1. In the past the future resembled the past; to your conclusion of the future will resemble the past. Guess what that second premise is? Premise #2: The future will resemble the past

I can't believe I'm going through this again. Just google problem of induction
 
You are equating that one can't show that an argument is reliable with the actual fact whether an argument is reliable.


I can't prove to you that I won't turn into a plate of spaghetti tomorrow. I can't prove that god exists. However, one of these arguments is more reliable than the other, even though neither can be shown to be reliable at all.
 
You are equating that one can't show that an argument is reliable with the actual fact whether an argument is reliable.


I can't prove to you that I won't turn into a plate of spaghetti tomorrow. I can't prove that god exists. However, one of these arguments is more reliable than the other, even though neither can be shown to be reliable at all.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you committed a logical fallacy. I am showing that your argument is not reliable. Your conclusion is correct, but attempting to reach that conclusion using only scientific observation is not logically possible.

The argument you are putting forward is akin to me saying I know God exists because God created the earth and whoever created the earth must exist. That is not a logically valid argument because in attempting to prove God exists I am presupposing his existence.

Likewise, in attempting to prove that the future will resemble the past you are presupposing that the future will resemble the past.
 
Back
Top