• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is provability required for belief?

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
As far as quantum mechanics/physics is concerned, physicists have mathematical proof even when they don't yet have physical proof. They have already managed to create a quantum computer and send an atom back in time one second.
Seems to me, doing experiments such as those you mention are physical proofs.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I would, also, believe that consciousness will one day be proven through the realization of the ability of the mind to control atoms and particles, energies, time, space and matter.
In my view, consciousness and the mind do control the body, specifically when issuing free will commands to the brain resulting in flexing muscles or releasing hormones and etc.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
No. You can believe anything you want, just try to not confuse fact with fancy.
Seems to me it's a fact that there is no natural law called consciousness and no quantum field call consciousness. And, seems to me, if consciousness is an emergent property of brain function, that it is nothing like the same kind of emergent property as surface tension of water (for example).
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
It is only as one thinks about things that one finds ways to test them and thus for into wrong headed, possible as some level of probability or damn likely.
Yes. This thinking about possibilities is, I would claim, philosophical reflection or philosophical inquiry. I am all in favor of philosophy (and science).
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Please demonstrate that "consciousness" exists as anything but a way for you (and others like you) to claim that you are somehow better than all other animals on earth. That is such egotistical horse pucky.
Even my dogs are conscious and I don't think I'm better than them but, rather, different. So there, I've provided a proof.

By the way, this is an example of my claim that in response to my statements, some merely answer with, "prove it".
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I think you have all this backwards.

Beliefs are very important. Without belief, we would all lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known.
I think you may have misread the OP. While I consider revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths as untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge, I accept the results of philosophical reflection as worthy of belief even if not provable using the scientific method. By definition, anything residing in the spiritual realm (consciousness and its contents, mind, ideas, soul, love, emotions, etc) is not provable by the scientific method.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
One might believe a certain person could be a lifelong friend, however one will never know until they Discover that fact for themselves. Discovery does take work.
Yes, so true. It is a good idea to constantly validate beliefs, rejecting those that prove to be limiting or those true only within a tiny domain. For example, F = MA is valid within the domain of classical physics, but this domain is large and very useful, and so there is no need to jettison it.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
is it justifiable to believe that anything that could be true, actually is true? If not, why not?
Perhaps by limiting the question to things that could be true, the assumption is they actually are true? For example, an apple can not be an orange. By discarding all things that can't be true, aren't we left with only things which are true?

Certainly we should believe things which are true. The difficulty is determining what things these are.

In my view, it is justifiable to also believe things that have good evidence based on philosophical reflection and philosophical analysis. Also, in my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are not trustworthy sources of knowledge and truth.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
how do we investigate anything at all about something beyond the physical universe? We only have access to the information provided by our five physical senses.
In my view, the subjective experience of consciousness and its contents resides in the spiritual realm. Therefore, our conscious reflection (via philosophy) is fully capable of knowing of spiritual matters.

My objection to materialism/physicalism is: that it is merely an assumption. No one can prove it. And the existence of the subjective experience of consciousness appears to disprove it.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Apart from science, where many having the necessary credentials will likely form an opinion, I think for the rest of us we have to balance the information we can process (accepting the many limitations and not always knowing the credibility of various sources) with our abilities and all that we have learnt. Hence for many things we will just have to accept a degree of doubt concerning many things - leaving things up in the air rather than us coming down completely on one side. Or that is how a sensible person would approach such things in my view.
I suspect that even the science experts do things the way you describe. But by using the scientific method, they can draw conclusions that are worthy of belief by us all.

In areas these science experts don't address (such as the subjective experience of consciousness), we have no other option than to reflect on it using philosophy.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
What we know, and are always learning, about animal behaviour tends to show, for me at least, that such a continuum exists, and hence if it does then consciousness must have arisen at some point - possibly to do with memory enhancement and language acquisition.
Yes, I agree with a continuum of consciousness. I wonder if even inanimate objects also possess a consciousness of sorts?

I even suspect that consciousness (or the mind, or the soul) of each organism guides its development at the subatomic quantum mechanics level -- that the soul develops along with the body, and is able to communicate with the body in two-way communication.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Provability is usually beyond most of us so we have to in essence exist without it, although because of this, as mentioned above, it should then restrict what we actually believe - and it would seem to me to be wiser to do so.
Yes, I agree. Seems to me that we should use philosophical reflection and philosophical analysis to inform our beliefs. And we should DEFINITELY accept the results of science.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
No this is completely wrong. I have lost count of the number of times I and others have had to set people straight about the nature of science. Science does not deal in proof at all. No theory in science is ever proved.

"Provable science" is a non-existent entity, of your own creation.
Scientific theories use philosophical arguments having logic and mathematics. Arguments use proofs. That's all I mean.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Science works to prove beliefs are false, and can never show they are true.
F = MA is true when limited to its proper domain. Why can science be used to build bridges and send people to the moon if it is so useless?
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
The ToE cannot be proved! It could still be wrong!!
No one has actually proved that mutations are random; this, because no one has proved that quantum mechanics randomness is actually random. It's possible that an intelligent designer chooses the outcome in a manner that looks random.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
No one has actually proved that mutations are random; this, because no one has proved that quantum mechanics randomness is actually random. It's possible that an intelligent designer chooses the outcome in a manner that looks random.

Couldnt it be that randomness is built into nature intelligently?

Perhaps there are specific patterns of randomness. Or a random order to things.
 
Top