How do physicians/med students/pre-meds feel about religion?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

So your argument is "because an inaccuracy exists, everything must be false". Do you understand the problem with this argument? The real issue here is not whether or not this constitutes a valid reason to believe something, but whether or not your argument constitutes a valid counterpoint. It does not btw....

I will say this: I think everything in the bible is true with respect to the perspective and understanding of the author.

Then you do not understand the argument. Most Christians (I do not assume that you are one of them) attempt to substantiate their beliefs by stating "it is true because the bible says so." I am simply saying that, when you allow for the idea that not everything in the bible is true, you can no longer use the fact that something is in the bible as evidence for it.

About half of the American population believes that evolution is a farce and that god created the universe less than 10,000 years ago BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Most of them, however, do not believe that a woman who gets married and cannot prove her virginity should be stoned to death, despite the fact that THE BIBLE SAYS SO.

Perhaps it is unfair of me to make this point, given that fact that most Christians have never actually read the bible. As Penn Jillette said "Reading the bible will make you an atheist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

I don't think you understood my argument. The cause of the bonding is subatomic interaction. I never stated that we should insert God into situations where he obviously does not belong. All I said was that the universe must have a cause since it had a beginning.

Hmm... I guess what I was trying to get at...

Back to the ions

Just because the ions bonded doesn't mean they have a specific cause in store for them. They simply bonded because of natural forces.

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

Well, the bonding of the ions had a beginning, which means it had a cause and that cause was the subatomic interactions between the molecules. What was the cause of the universe? I assume you accept the premise that everything with a beginning has a cause because you have not yet refuted it.

Ok... Lol... If you want to look at it that way then the concenatration of matter was the cause for the existence of the universe in its current state of space.

What does this have to do with god anyway?


Edit: but it's doesn't have a "cause" in the sense that it was meant for something or some creator planned it tha way, if thats what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

The concentration of matter? There was no matter, there was NOTHING. That is precisely my point.

Are you saying that all the matter in the universe wasn't compressed into the size of an atom right before the big bang occurred?

I was raised southern baptist and attended until I was 17 or so. Every Wednesday and Sunday, and any other night some random thing was happening. One of the central tenets is that the bible = word of god = infallible. I remember they had a sermon on why The Da Vinci is false (you proved a work of fiction is...fiction. Congrats). The argument boiled down to "it's not in the bible :smug:"

I totally see where specter is coming from (throwing the baby out with the bathwater), but when the whole infallible bible concept is thrown out many current christian denominations (at least the ones I know of in the south) fall apart as it is such a core belief. This in and of itself does not disprove god, of course.

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. Modern science tells us that the Universe exploded out of being not from matter that was the size of an atom, but rather from nothing at all. That is the dilemma,

Please cite the source that says the big bang resulted from the explosion of nothing rather than the explosion of matter

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

The concentration of matter? There was no matter, there was NOTHING. That is precisely my point.

The laws of physics offer our best explanation (so far) for the origin of the universe. And I will preempt the inevitable claim that the laws of physics cannot predate the universe, or that they in turn must have been created by pointing out the question that is so often asked: "who created the creator." You infer a creator of the universe that himself had no creator; who exists, but was never created (unlike the universe, which apparently must have had a creator). I would like to bring up the idea that perhaps the "creator" of the universe was the laws of physics. If you are wondering how the laws of physics can create a universe, please watch Lawrence Krauss' lecture on the subject, it is both informative and entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

If it was the explosion of matter, where did that matter come from? Please try to be a bit logical.

I am being logical. You should try articulating your thoughts with more precision.

I have actually already addressed this in a prior post and don't feel like typing it all out again on my iPhone.

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

2. the laws of physics are not an intelligent being capable of creating anything, they are inanimate entities that cannot, by their inherent nature, create anything.

The subatomic interactions which created the NaCl molecule aren't "intelligent" either.

Originally Posted by Venom5

and the author was inspired by god right?

Most of it is historical record so I see no reason for inspiration to be a part of it... for those parts that aren't historical record, yes. However I dont think it is appropriate to take "inspired word as transcribed via early historic man" as equal to "completely accurate in an entirely explicit sense with respect to 2012 nuance". Inspired also shouldn't mean perfect.... an ancient man recording thoughts that are not entirely his own does not mean that he penciled them down with 100% accuracy. Also id just like to make clear, this post is meant only to highlight the flaws in this very common secular argument rather than to convey my opinion (which I haven't technically done) as some sort of absolute truth

Originally Posted by Venom5

Please cite the source that says the big bang resulted from the explosion of nothing rather than the explosion of matter

Certain interpretations the multiverse theory. Its important to remember that many of the ideas surrounding the origin of universe are really subjective interpretations of the math.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

I've also seen this represented (rather than branes) as the fabric of two parallel universes colliding and generating a "big bang" at the impact site of each universe. Again, it is all about just coming up with a story to explain the numbers.... which actually, in the context of a religious debate, carries with it a hearty serving of delicious irony

Originally Posted by Cynicalbrit

Then you do not understand the argument. Most Christians (I do not assume that you are one of them) attempt to substantiate their beliefs by stating "it is true because the bible says so." I am simply saying that, when you allow for the idea that not everything in the bible is true, you can no longer use the fact that something is in the bible as evidence for it.

About half of the American population believes that evolution is a farce and that god created the universe less than 10,000 years ago BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Most of them, however, do not believe that a woman who gets married and cannot prove her virginity should be stoned to death, despite the fact that THE BIBLE SAYS SO.

Perhaps it is unfair of me to make this point, given that fact that most Christians have never actually read the bible. As Penn Jillette said "Reading the bible will make you an atheist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w

That is perfectly fine. But the inability to argue using literature is not evidence to support the opposition (atheism). That is all. It is an all too common atheistic fallacy. I just expect the side which claims to engage using science, reason, and logic to actually use those things

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

No,no my friend. They did not create the NaCl, they caused the NaCl. We need to be distinct in our word choices when dealing with such a subject matter...

Caused the NaCl to be what? Caused the NaCl to throw a barbecue? Causes the nacl to buy a barbie doll? Caused the NaCl to be created?

just replace created with caused the creation then if it makes you feel better

These arguments about causation are incredibly old - thousands of years old, in fact. It is reasonable to say that the universe just is, just as it is reasonable to say that God is the base of Being. I find the latter more satisfying; it just feels true; but you can easily espouse the former without reservation. Now if you want to hear some really competent writing on causation, read Hume, Spinoza, or Leibniz, if you're crazy. Physicists tend to gloss over metaphysical problems, or else they'd never get anything done.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Caused the NaCl to be what? Caused the NaCl to throw a barbecue? Causes the nacl to buy a barbie doll? Caused the NaCl to be created?

just replace created with caused the creation then if it makes you feel better

NaCl is a terrible cook... so obviously not caused to throw a BBQ.... ew

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

That doesn't make any sense. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist. Consequently, the universe had a cause.

I didn't realize William Lane Craig posted on SDN

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

NaCl is a terrible cook... so obviously not caused to throw a BBQ.... ew

Gotta season those steaks!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I didn't realize William Lane Craig posted on SDN

Lol I'm glad someone else knows who that moron is. Poster's arguments are surprisingly in lane with Craig's

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I didn't realize William Lane Craig posted on SDN

Or St. Augustine or Aristotle...
There is nothing new under the sun.

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

Or St. Augustine or Aristotle...
There is nothing new under the sun.

Except for all the new things scientific research uncovers everyday. New electronics, new chemistry, new drugs and treatments

Originally Posted by Venom5

Except for all the new things scientific research uncovers everyday. New electronics, new chemistry, new drugs and treatments

I was trying to be wry, but this post rubs me the wrong way, so I'll just be explicit. It is telling that the post I quoted referred not to the original attested authors of this idea but to a modern debater. It shows that people treat these subjects with little care.

As for your own facetious post, I would ask first how ideas count as things. How exactly have we plucked then from the platonic realm? If they are just physical things, what and where are they? How do we have access to them? Finally, how does any of our knowledge explain causation, ultimate or otherwise?

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

Or St. Augustine or Aristotle...
There is nothing new under the sun.

But William Lane Craig is still alive, and the Kalam Cosmological argument is the main argument he uses.

If anyone really cares enough to, we can dissect it and go through what's wrong with it, though there are plenty of places on the internet you could go and find this information.

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

I was trying to be wry, but this post rubs me the wrong way, so I'll just be explicit. It is telling that the post I quoted referred not to the original attested authors of this idea but to a modern debater. It shows that people treat these subjects with little care.

As for your own facetious post, I would ask first how ideas count as things. How exactly have we plucked then from the platonic realm? If they are just physical things, what and where are they? How do we have access to them? Finally, how does any of our knowledge explain causation, ultimate or otherwise?

Lol what???

I am not sure what you are saying in your second paragraph. Are you saying that ideas don't amount to things?
scientific inventions come from a type of thought process different from Craig's

I understand the important role the religion plays in our lives and accept that it is always going to be there but personally I find it hard to believe in the existence of God.

I don't believe in God not because of the supernatural things described in the Bible because I know it was written by people not by God so there are inaccuracies, and pointing out those inaccuracies do not disprove God's existence.

Here is what I always wonder about religious people. What makes them believe in the existence of God in the first place? Because the Bible said so? Remember that it was written by people. Why should I believe in some seemingly made up stories written by people thousands years ago? Does any of them actually believe there was a sky man from above pass out commandments of God or his son died and rose again 3 days later? If you believe in the teaching of Bible about how one should live his life then I can understand that but this whole idea of thinking there is a big man from above watching us seems to be delusional to me.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Lol what???

I am not sure what you are saying in your second paragraph. Are you saying that ideas don't amount to things?
scientific inventions come from a type of thought process different from Craig's

If ideas are things, then you can tell me what they are and how we have access to them. If inventions are new things, they must have been created ex nihilo, or else they are just new arrangements of what already existed. If new relations and qualities are all that are needed for something to be new, then you must first define relations and qualities. Where and what are they?

If you can answer these questions, you deserve a Nobel Prize. Otherwise, I suggest you think long and hard about them for the rest of your life, as we all should if we're going to make claims about them.

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

If ideas are things, then you can tell me what they are and how we have access to them. If inventions are new things, they must have been created ex nihilo, or else they are just new arrangements of what already existed. If new relations and qualities are all that are needed for something to be new, then you must first define relations and qualities. Where and what are they?

If you can answer these questions, you deserve a Nobel Prize. Otherwise, I suggest you think long and hard about them for the rest of your life, as we all should if we're going to make claims about them.

None of us has ever witnessed anything being created ex nihilo, so we can only really talk about things being created in the sense of new arrangements of pre-existing parts (back reference to problems with Kalam). Ideas are not physical entities. THey are abstractions - they don't exist in the same way we mean physical things to exist. I'm not sure what kind of definitions of relations and qualities you are looking for. Why do we need these exactly?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of us has ever witnessed anything being created ex nihilo

Ok.... can we all just agree to stop using Latin phrases to reword every argument ever made so I can stop googling them all? I understand pig Latin. Lets just move forward with that

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Ok.... can we all just agree to stop using Latin phrases to reword every argument ever made so I can stop googling them all? I understand pig Latin. Lets just move forward with that

If you don't understand these latin phrases and aren't familiar with academic philosophy, we don't need your kind in this thread

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of us has ever witnessed anything being created ex nihilo, so we can only really talk about things being created in the sense of new arrangements of pre-existing parts (back reference to problems with Kalam). Ideas are not physical entities. THey are abstractions - they don't exist in the same way we mean physical things to exist. I'm not sure what kind of definitions of relations and qualities you are looking for. Why do we need these exactly?

If ideas are not physical, then they are supernatural; that sounds awfully absurd to me - awfully dualistic. Either way, you need to explain how we have access to ideas.

If you admit inventions are only new in the sense that they are new arrangements, then they are either not really new or there is something new about their qualities; what, then, is a quality?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If you don't understand these latin phrases and aren't familiar with academic philosophy, we don't need your kind in this thread

Ok enough with the otay theay anmay arguments please

I was never cut out for philosophy, don't have a beard to scratch

But yeah unfortunately I speak english not Latin so... Can we stop talking about ex nihilo because I doubt deus ex machina will happen

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

If ideas are not physical, then they are supernatural; that sounds awfully absurd to me - awfully dualistic. Either way, you need to explain how we have access to ideas.

If you admit inventions are only new in the sense that they are new arrangements, then they are either not really new or there is something new about their qualities; what, then, is a quality?

Why are you trying to define all the words and ideas which we all know and agree on? We are already arguing about the ones we disagree on...

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Ok enough with the otay theay anmay arguments please

Lol, is that your way of saying ad hominem? hahah, love it

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

If ideas are not physical, then they are supernatural; that sounds awfully absurd to me - awfully dualistic. Either way, you need to explain how we have access to ideas.

If you admit inventions are only new in the sense that they are new arrangements, then they are either not really new or there is something new about their qualities; what, then, is a quality?

Oh cmon, you don't think I can spot such a blatant false dichotomy? What kind of amateur do you take me for? I wasn't aware everything was either physical or supernatural... because it isn't. Concepts, abstractions... what makes these supernatural? It's just not an actual dichotomy, just one you, as well as proponents of the transcendental argument, made up. As for inventions, the new thing about them is their arrangement, and that new arrangement can allow it to do different things that other things cannot. And how we have access to these ideas? That's a question of neuroscience, not philosophy (which we can talk about if you want, but I thought you'd wanna stick with the latter).

Originally Posted by Venom5

Why are you trying to define all the words and ideas which we all know and agree on? We are already arguing about the ones we diagree on...

That is quite an assumption you've got there! How did you fit it into the posting window? If we all agree on these definitions, it should be a simple matter to state them.

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

That is quite an assumption you've got there! How did you fit it into the posting window? If we all agree on these definitions, it should be a simple matter to state them.

We all (mostly) agree that it's pointless to cloud these arguments with hipsterish Latin phrases and wording. I really hope you don't talk like that irl rofl.

In any case this is turning a bit too philosophical

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Lol, is that your way of saying ad hominem? hahah, love it


Oh cmon, you don't think I can spot such a blatant false dichotomy? What kind of amateur do you take me for? I wasn't aware everything was either physical or supernatural... because it isn't. Concepts, abstractions... what makes these supernatural? It's just not an actual dichotomy, just one you, as well as proponents of the transcendental argument, made up. As for inventions, the new thing about them is their arrangement, and that new arrangement can allow it to do different things that other things cannot. And how we have access to these ideas? That's a question of neuroscience, not philosophy (which we can talk about if you want, but I thought you'd wanna stick with the latter).

This is no false dichotomy. Supernatural merely means "that which is not physical." If ideas are not physical, they are by definition supernatural. There is no third category of "not physical but also not not physical." This is not a distinction set forth only by proponents of religion; it is a central issue in all of philosophy. So I will ask you simply just to explain and define these issues once more if they are so obvious.

edit: I thought I'd add again that if 'new arrangements' is what makes something new, then the arrangements must be physical things or they must be ideas, and if they are ideas then again they are either physical things or they are supernatural. Finally, if this is an issue for neuroscience, then tell me how the brain, which is most assuredly physical, can perceive as it does in our objective Being, and furthermore how it can perceive ideas, things, or anything else as it does in our subjective experience.

Actually supernatural is almost almost directly synonymous with "unnatural" with an upstroke in connotation and makes no attempt to quantify level of "physical"

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Actually supernatural is almost almost directly synonymous with "unnatural" with an upstroke in connotation and makes no attempt to quantify level of "physical"

This is ridiculous; if something is not physical, it is supernatural; pick any connotations you desire and it is still true. If I said explicitly that ideas were platonic rays or ghosts, they are either way supernatural. What word would you coin to avoid this false dilemma? "Para-physical?"

No.... Are you familiar with circle diagrams? The word you're using overlaps quite a bit with the meaning you imply. However they aren't the same. Thoughts are not physical. Are they supernatural? The story of Jesus feeding 5000 was a physical act (even if you want to argue via non physical means) does it then become simply natural? Yes this is semantics. However semantics are often very important

It's difficult at times to disprove the known (science), it's even harder to refute what is unknown (religion)

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

No.... Are you familiar with circle diagrams? The word you're using overlaps quite a bit with the meaning you imply. However they aren't the same. Thoughts are not physical. Are they supernatural? The story of Jesus feeding 5000 was a physical act (even if you want to argue via non physical means) does it then become simply natural? Yes this is semantics. However semantics are often very important

This is not an issue of semantics, but one that arises from the definitions of the words. Everything that is is natural, so then yes miracles are natural. If you instead define natural as "what follows the laws governing reality" and then construct those laws without regards to all phenomena, you either have poor definitions or poor physics. I am, of course, avoiding the issue of whether miracles have ever actually happened, but since your argument assumes they have, so does mine.

Originally Posted by Venom5

We all (mostly) agree that it's pointless to cloud these arguments with hipsterish Latin phrases and wording. I really hope you don't talk like that irl rofl.

In any case this is turning a bit too philosophical

The world is in a sad state if Latin phrases and philosophical discussions are considered 'hipsterish.' I don't talk like this in real life for the same reason I ought not discuss philosophy on these forums: no one else wants to do the requisite work. You made a statement and I asked you to defend it, and then Sephiroth was kind enough to take up the argument. If you consider demanding definitions to be obfuscating, then what do you consider to be clarifying?

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

The world is in a sad state if Latin phrases and philosophical discussions are considered 'hipsterish.' I don't talk like this in real life for the same reason I ought not discuss philosophy on these forums: no one else wants to do the requisite work. You made a statement and I asked you to defend it, and then Sephiroth was kind enough to take up the argument. If you consider demanding definitions to be obfuscating, then what do you consider to be clarifying?

When people don't use words like obfuscating

Originally Posted by Venom5

When people don't use words like obfuscating

I don't know what to say. May I suggest http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

This is not an issue of semantics, but one that arises from the definitions of the words. .

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I'm sorry; you were right. What I wrote was stupid.

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

This is ridiculous; if something is not physical, it is supernatural; pick any connotations you desire and it is still true. If I said explicitly that ideas were platonic rays or ghosts, they are either way supernatural. What word would you coin to avoid this false dilemma? "Para-physical?"

Is the software you are using to make these posts "physical"? Thoughts are merely "software". Ideas are "software".

Originally Posted by Venom5

Are you saying that all the matter in the universe wasn't compressed into the size of an atom right before the big bang occurred?

"Matter". Do you mean pure energy perhaps? If you try to define the "big bang" in terms of our current universe of space-time, then you have a problem. If there is no space, there is no time, so the very idea of a beginning is meaningless.

Originally Posted by plumazul

Is the software you are using to make these posts "physical"? Thoughts are merely "software". Ideas are "software".

Ok, so if ideas are just physical phenomena in your brain, where are the monitor, mouse, and keyboard? How do you experience them?

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

Ok, so if ideas are just physical phenomena in your brain, where are the monitor, mouse, and keyboard? How do you experience them?

with your brain... what are you trying to get out of this?

Originally Posted by gettheleadout

The effect of space expansion is observable in that sense from any point in the universe. It doesn't mean one is at the true "center."

Given the distance between solar systems within galaxies, it's not like the earth will necessarily be absorbed into some random Andromedan star.

this is correct logically, the theory however, idealistically, is the equivalent of placing us at the 'center' as it is described.

the sun will expand and cook the earth in 800 million years, long before the 2 galaxies collide.