Religion among Premeds

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Those are not beliefs. Those are facts. Whether you don't 'believe' in those, they are always held true

What do you mean by "facts"? You certainly can't test for them, you must assume them to even design a test. They are beliefs. You are at odds with any honest definition of the scientific method that I can find.

"The scientific method requires certain a priori assumptions of epistemology and metaphysics in order to even get out of the starting gate."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging."
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

"There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist, that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.[98] These assumptions from methodological naturalism form a basis on which science may be grounded. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have criticized these assumptions and given alternative accounts of the logic of science, but each has also itself been criticized."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Properties_of_scientific_inquiry

Members don't see this ad.
 
Induction requires belief. And how do beliefs not lead to anywhere? A belief that living a just and moral life is obligatory to a Christian means that they will try their best to be good and kind to others. There is knowledge that is valuable that is not scientific. Science isn't the only means to value and truth.


Just because God knows what's going to happen, doesn't mean that God's prior knowledge influenced any action, that's what you call a non-sequitur. Having freedom of the will doesn't equate with being totally unpredictable.




Rutgers New Jersey Medical School class of 2019!


Freedom rises from unpredictable nature. You can argue that God is all powerful and knowing, instead of all-knowing. Imagine someone is seating on a chair. Every time you take action, he will shout out "I knew it!". When you try to trick him by taking rapid action, he will simply shout out "I knew it" because he knew that you were gonna "try" to trick him. In fact, he knew that he himself gonna sit on that chair and shout "I knew it". When he decides to stop and stands up to 'trick' himself, he has no free will because he already decided from the beginning that he will try to trick himself.
 
What evidence is there for God?

I'm going to word this to be as clear as possible: There is a lot of evidence out there. Google it. None of it will be scientific, and I have never claimed there is any scientific evidence for the existence of God. If you are looking for scientific evidence you won't find any, and will remain firmly fixated in your current position.

My point was that we know more about the world now and are able to see that these things don't make any sense.

Which things don't make any sense? They don't make any sense to whom? If they don't make sense to you or your friends, does that mean they don't, or can't, make sense to anyone else? If they don't make sense to you now, does that mean they won't ever make sense to you? Are you suggesting that people who were critical of belief in God at some point in their lives cannot come to believe in God at another point, indicating that as they thought more about it, and considered it further, it actually made more sense?

Does anything observed in the natural world--with all of our increased knowledge--disprove the existence of God?

Could God not have used evolution by natural selection as the means of bringing the universe to be and us to where we are now?

Modern science has show that it is not a choice. I'll send you some good research papers when I have the chance.

What isn't a choice? Being gay? How do you define gayness? Is homosexuality a static concept? Can people fall along the Kinsey Scale, yet choose which gender they want to have sex with, or to partner their lives with? What about bisexuality? What about other expressions of sexuality, such as zoophilia and pedophilia? Are these choices? If not, to what extent do you think all genetic predispositions should be accepted in human society? What's the baseline for your rationality? Is it a moral choice? If so, how do you decide whose morals are more substantial? How do you decide which set of morals to legislate in a society, forcing others to abide by? How do you justify it? What's your point of reference?

See there? See how quickly and easily a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon leaves the boundaries of what science is able to explain? See how quickly we move past what science is able to provide for the other facets of human experience?

What evidence do you think there is for the existence of god?

Like I said before, I have ample evidence for me to trust that God exists. Right now I'm really enjoying thinking about the mathematical order and measurability of the universe (the Ultimate Ensemble, as it is termed by some). Anyway, I think I'm currently sharing the same astonishment Albert Einstein had when he made his famous comment, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

I also think the following quote from Eugene Wigner sums up this particular evidence I've been ruminating on the last couple of months: "The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it... it is an article of faith."

That's one of the evidences for me. There are countless others, but it should give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
What do you mean by "facts"? You certainly can't test for them, you must assume them to even design a test. They are beliefs. You are at odds with any honest definition of the scientific method that I can find.

"The scientific method requires certain a priori assumptions of epistemology and metaphysics in order to even get out of the starting gate."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging."
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

"There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist, that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.[98] These assumptions from methodological naturalism form a basis on which science may be grounded. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have criticized these assumptions and given alternative accounts of the logic of science, but each has also itself been criticized."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Properties_of_scientific_inquiry



Is Epistemological solipsism absolutely required for someone to use scientific method? There so many different 'philosophies' explaining scientific reasoning that I do not feel the need of addressing them all because I definitely cannot agree with the idea of 'basic assumption'.
 
I'm going to word this to be as clear as possible: There is a lot of evidence out there. Google it. None of it will be scientific, and I have never claimed there is any scientific evidence for the existence of God. If you are looking for scientific evidence you won't find any, and will remain firmly fixated in your current position.



Which things don't make any sense? They don't make any sense to whom? If they don't make sense to you or your friends, does that mean they don't, or can't, make sense to anyone else? If they don't make sense to you now, does that mean they won't ever make sense to you? Are you suggesting that people who were critical of belief in God at some point in their lives cannot come to believe in God at another point, indicating that as they thought more about it, and considered it further, it actually made more sense?

Does anything observed in the natural world--with all of our increased knowledge--disprove the existence of God?

Could God not have used evolution by natural selection as the means of bringing the universe to be and us to where we are now?



What isn't a choice? Being gay? How do you define gayness? Is homosexuality a static concept? Can people fall along the Kinsey Scale, yet choose which gender they want to have sex with, or to partner their lives with? What about bisexuality? What about other expressions of sexuality, such as zoophilia and pedophilia? Are these choices? If not, to what extent do you think all genetic predispositions should be accepted in human society? What's the baseline for your rationality? Is it a moral choice? If so, how do you decide whose morals are more substantial? How do you decide which set of morals to legislate in a society, forcing others to abide by? How do you justify it? What's your point of reference?

See there? See how quickly and easily a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon leaves the boundaries of what science is able to explain? See how quickly we move past what science is able to provide for the other facets of human experience?

What evidence do you think there is for the existence of god?

Like I said before, I have ample evidence for me to trust that God exists. Right now I'm really enjoying thinking about the mathematical order and measurability of the universe (the Ultimate Ensemble, as it is termed by some). Anyway, I think I'm currently sharing the same astonishment Albert Einstein had when he made his famous comment, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

I also think the following quote from Eugene Wigner sums up this particular evidence I've been ruminating on the last couple of months: "The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it... it is an article of faith."

That's one of the evidences for me. There are countless others, but it should give you an idea of where I'm coming from.[/QUOTE]


Even though, I do not believe in God, this is very appreciable answer from a believer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Freedom rises from unpredictable nature. You can argue that God is all powerful and knowing, instead of all-knowing. Imagine someone is seating on a chair. Every time you take action, he will shout out "I knew it!". When you try to trick him by taking rapid action, he will simply shout out "I knew it" because he knew that you were gonna "try" to trick him. In fact, he knew that he himself gonna sit on that chair and shout "I knew it". When he decides to stop and stands up to 'trick' himself, he has no free will because he already decided from the beginning that he will try to trick himself.

I'm sorry. I still don't understand how there's a logical inconsistency with God's foreknowledge and rational creatures' freedom. I'll take David Hume's definition of freedom on this one, which he claims as movement without obstruction or obstacle. Unless God is obstructing your will, then he is not violating your freedom.

Personally I hate this analogy, but think of it like this:

You have a child and you know that their favorite color is red. You tell them to go pick out their favorite bicycle helmet and the options are blue, green and red.

They choose red. Was this a surprise to you? More importantly, did you obstruct their freedom to choose in anyway? Can you really say that your child is not free because of your knowledge of their choice prior to them making that choice?

I don't understand also how God's changeless nature proves that God is logically inconsistent with creating free creatures. What relevance does God's inability to trick himself bring to the table?






Rutgers New Jersey Medical School class of 2019!
 
I'm sorry. I still don't understand how there's a logical inconsistency with God's foreknowledge and rational creatures' freedom. I'll take David Hume's definition of freedom on this one, which he claims as movement without obstruction or obstacle. Unless God is obstructing your will, then he is not violating your freedom.

Personally I hate this analogy, but think of it like this:

You have a child and you know that their favorite color is red. You tell them to go pick out their favorite bicycle helmet and the options are blue, green and red.

They choose red. Was this a surprise to you? More importantly, did you obstruct their freedom to choose in anyway? Can you really say that your child is not free because of your knowledge of their choice prior to them making that choice?

I don't understand also how God's changeless nature proves that God is logically inconsistent with creating free creatures. What relevance does God's inability to trick himself bring to the table?






Rutgers New Jersey Medical School class of 2019!


English is my second language. So I will post a link here

http://theskepticalteenager.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/can-god-be-all-powerful-and-all-knowing/
 
Is Epistemological solipsism absolutely required for someone to use scientific method? There so many different 'philosophies' explaining scientific reasoning that I do not feel the need of addressing them all because I definitely cannot agree with the idea of 'basic assumption'.

You're denying that science has basic assumptions behind its method? Do you have a source that explains the scientific method in a way that has no base assumptions? I'm finding this denial of the base assumptions very...odd. You're not ceding ground just because you're acknowledging the truth of the scientific method, if that's what you're worried about. And having base assumptions certainly doesn't weaken the scientific method.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
jewish!
i come from a family of holocaust survivors and actually speak about it in secondaries. its a huge part of my life and i am proud to share their stories :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Even the part about not eating shrimp, not wearing certain fabrics, women not speaking in churches, and being condemned to death for working on Sunday?

Three out of the four things you mentioned were OT rules that were abolished at the Resurrection of Christ. I would be more than happy to answer more in depth, but I sense that you ask merely as an antagonist and not because you actually want to know. Since I have secondaries I'm currently working on, I have no time to waste getting into an argument that will not go anywhere.

If that is not the case, then by all means, feel free to PM me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not really. That is a good question. I will say this though. I have pondered the question of G-d's existence several times before and I still do it now sometimes. Whether or not G-d exists, I think I have personally discovered reasons to believe G-d is real. Perhaps if I didn't care whether or not G-d existed in the first place, I would not believe in him.

I was raised catholic. I believed in all the miracles, the sacrements, everything. Once I started to think about how, had I been raised differently, I would probably have been just as adament in some other faith, it all started to not make any sense. I felt like there couldn't be much truth in traditions whose most adament followers would have been just as adament in some other faith had they been born somewhere else.
 
Guys I don't know what to do. There are so many wonderful gods and religions, which one do I choose?!
 
Guys I don't know what to do. There are so many wonderful gods and religions, which one do I choose?!

Can't tell if srs, but I'll leave you with this: The majority of world religions teach that God is someone who sits atop an infinite mountain, and it is humankind's duty to scale this (insurmountable) mountain to reach him. Christianity is the only religion that teaches that God descended the mountain to reach us.

Take it for what you will, and all the best on your journey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top