Rationality

[Cyperium]

Is rationality a term for taking away things don't evidenced from a theory? Is that all?

Then no theory would hold, since it need premissess.

God and Jesus and the teachings therein is the premiss of Christianity, it is something that is necessary for any rationality within the religion.

Thus Religion is in itself not irrational, the same as such a theory is not by itself irrational.

Christianity would be empty without God or Jesus. The Big Bang theory would be empty without the Big Bang, the Big Bang which the theory tries to prove, is as such needed for the theory itself allthough unproven.

[(Q)]

Is rationality a term for taking away things don't evidenced from a theory? Is that all?

No, rationality is the quality of being consistent with or based on logic.

Then no theory would hold, since it need premissess.

Theories hold because they are falsifiable.

God and Jesus and the teachings therein is the premiss of Christianity, it is something that is necessary for any rationality within the religion.

Rationally, which must be consistent with or based on logic, the so-called teachings of god and jesus are based entirely on a single book, one that is void of rationality and logic itself, and is more aligned with myth and legend.

Thus Religion is in itself not irrational, the same as such a theory is not by itself irrational.

You're forgetting, or you simply don't know, that theories are based on observations and experimentation, something severely lacking in religion.

Christianity would be empty without God or Jesus.

As it is.

The Big Bang theory would be empty without the Big Bang, the Big Bang which the theory tries to prove, is as such needed for the theory itself allthough unproven.

The Big Bang theory is based on careful, rigorous and meticulous observations. It doesn't try to prove anything. It simply explains the observations.

Christianity will try to explain the observations as a magical wave of a hand from a divine being.

And that is rational how?

[Baron Max]

The Big Bang theory is based on careful, rigorous and meticulous observations. It doesn't try to prove anything. It simply explains the observations.

But it still can't explain how there was anything to explode in the Big Bang. Where did the original "gunpowder" come from? No one seems to know, even those supporting the Big Bang theory. So .....now what?

Baron Max

[KennyJC]

So .....now what?

Isn't it obvious? Seeing as it is something we can't fully explain, the only place to turn to is the Bible, were it's legitimacy can not be questioned.

[Baron Max]

Isn't it obvious? Seeing as it is something we can't fully explain, the only place to turn to is the Bible, were it's legitimacy can not be questioned.

Well, I don't think that's so obvious, is it? But it's just one of the many issues that science can't explain, yet there are people who refute any and all religious teachings as nonsense by trying to use science as a "rational" explanation .....which it isn't.

I ask again .......so what now?

Baron Max

[KennyJC]

Well there is a difference, as science CAN explain, or at least give a clearer picture of things. For example, I am aware that evolution is fact, but I am sure not everything can be explained about evolution, yet.

I would hardly agree that since science can not yet explain absolutely everything, that means that religion has at least some legitimacy. Religion is a way of thinking, it doesn't explain the world around us... Or beyond, for that matter. Me saying that the universe was created by the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster), has equally as much credence as that of an old man with a long gray beard in a white gown. Therefore people who follow that religion can not be taken seriously. As can people who claim the universe was created by the FSM can not be taken seriously.

[the preacher]

cyperium: rationality does not come in gradiants, it's either irrational or rational, the big bang theory can be explained with clear precise reasoning, but the opposite can only be said for the god did it theory, the god jesus ideas, are just baseless fantasy.
though we cant prove 100% that the big bang happened, it's a much more reasoned idea then god did it, so we can be 99.9% sure it's the way it happened.

[Baron Max]

I am aware that evolution is fact, but I am sure not everything can be explained about evolution, yet.

Isn't that the same/similar thing as "believing in" something which is, at the moment, intangible and/or uncertain? I.e., you BELIEVE in evolution ....just like religious peope BELIEVE in god. Aren't they, also, just waiting for all of those unknowns to be explained to them .....just like you?

Baron Max

[KennyJC]

Isn't that the same/similar thing as "believing in" something which is, at the moment, intangible and/or uncertain? I.e., you BELIEVE in evolution ....just like religious peope BELIEVE in god. Aren't they, also, just waiting for all of those unknowns to be explained to them .....just like you?

Baron Max

You are trying the blur the lines between fact and belief. I 'beleive in evolution because it has been observed.

Nothing fascinates me more than what can't be observed or explained. But there is a difference in that I don't believe what can't be observed, even if I entertain thoughts on them.

[Baron Max]

I 'beleive in evolution because it has been observed.

No, only part of it has been observed. You've "seen" many parts of it that seem to work perfectly well with the theory, but it's not complete, is it? There's a part that's missing ...where and how did "it" all start?

Evolution can't explain THAT part. So for you to believe in evolution is not much different to religious people believing that god started the evolutionary ball rolling. It's not fact or fiction, either. It's not observable data.

Please understand that I'm not saying that god did started it, I don't know what started it all. B then neither does anyone else. So to take the theory of evolution as THE answer "on faith" is nothing more or less than religion taking god "on faith".

Your best answer is to say, "Well, I don't know ...but I don't think/believe that an intelligent lifeform started it." But even then, you're basing your answer of "belief", aren't you? Perhaps it's just best to say, "Geez, I don't know!"

Baron Max

[Satyr]

Anytime I hear of “rationality” or “reason” being mentioned in a religious discussion I’m reminded of a drowning man grabbing his hair and trying to pull his head out of the relentless water to save himself.

It’s both funny and pathetic.

[kenworth]

No, only part of it has been observed. You've "seen" many parts of it that seem to work perfectly well with the theory, but it's not complete, is it? There's a part that's missing ...where and how did "it" all start?

Evolution can't explain THAT part. So for you to believe in evolution is not much different to religious people believing that god started the evolutionary ball rolling. It's not fact or fiction, either. It's not observable data.

Please understand that I'm not saying that god did started it, I don't know what started it all. B then neither does anyone else. So to take the theory of evolution as THE answer "on faith" is nothing more or less than religion taking god "on faith".

Your best answer is to say, "Well, I don't know ...but I don't think/believe that an intelligent lifeform started it." But even then, you're basing your answer of "belief", aren't you? Perhaps it's just best to say, "Geez, I don't know!"

Baron Max

at what point does your "but you dont know how the universe started" arguement stop.evolution?relativity?maxwell's equations?newtonian gravity?dynamics? are all these just beliefs?and if so is your computer,car,credit card etc etc just beliefs manifested?

[Baron Max]

Kenworth, I don't know what ye're asking?? Have you read the thread? Please read the thread, then ask pertinent questions and I'll try my best to answer them.

But for now, I have no idea what ye're asking. It's almost like your post was meant for some other thread somewhere. Pleae, read the thread more carefully.

Baron Max

[cosmictraveler]

Is rationality a term for taking away things don't evidenced from a theory

No, for a theory is based upon some facts that are found concerning a subject whereas rationality is the realization of certain things that are happening around you or in the world. One can rationalize a bank robbery because people want money.

[Cyperium]

cyperium: rationality does not come in gradiants, it's either irrational or rational, the big bang theory can be explained with clear precise reasoning, but the opposite can only be said for the god did it theory, the god jesus ideas, are just baseless fantasy.
though we cant prove 100% that the big bang happened, it's a much more reasoned idea then god did it, so we can be 99.9% sure it's the way it happened.

But you go against yourself, since you can't prove 100% that the big bang happened and rationality doesn't come in gradiants. Just pointing it out though I understand that you probably meant something else than you wrote.

[Cyperium]

Is rationality a term for taking away things don't evidenced from a theory? Is that all?

No, rationality is the quality of being consistent with or based on logic.

Ok...so explain logic, is any logic itself logical? Can logic be made to fit theory instead of the other way around? Don't just explain it like 1+1=2.

Then no theory would hold, since it need premissess.

Theories hold because they are falsifiable.

So theories hold because they can be shown to be false? But not everything can be shown to be false!

So what should we do with those things? Like string theory which at the moment cannot be shown to be false though consistent with logic (in the form of equations). The whole theory is pretty much a premiss.

God and Jesus and the teachings therein is the premiss of Christianity, it is something that is necessary for any rationality within the religion.

Rationally, which must be consistent with or based on logic, the so-called teachings of god and jesus are based entirely on a single book, one that is void of rationality and logic itself, and is more aligned with myth and legend.

No, it isn't based on a single book and it isn't void of rationality and logic, don't simplify things too much.

More aligned with myth and legend? Some parts of the Bible is meant metaphorically, maybe it's those that you associate with myth and legend, some parts have been given to simple man by insights and revelations and written down the best they could. But some parts also include personal letters and historical descriptions of what happened at that time. I'm sure someone can explain this better for you.

Thus Religion is in itself not irrational, the same as such a theory is not by itself irrational.

You're forgetting, or you simply don't know, that theories are based on observations and experimentation, something severely lacking in religion.

Theories have been allowed that hasn't had any experimentation (cause it's just not possible), even though observations are consistent with a theory doesn't make the theory true and observations are allways dependent on how they are interpreted. We have observations, even some that you might call scientifical though they don't point directly towards God (not single-endly).

Christianity would be empty without God or Jesus.

As it is.

As it is not.

The Big Bang theory would be empty without the Big Bang, the Big Bang which the theory tries to prove, is as such needed for the theory itself allthough unproven.

The Big Bang theory is based on careful, rigorous and meticulous observations. It doesn't try to prove anything. It simply explains the observations.

What observations have it explained? Can it not be explained differently? Or at least more easily? For I guess the equations are long. Does it really explain it? How can you be sure?

Christianity will try to explain the observations as a magical wave of a hand from a divine being.

It's not that easy even for us.

And that is rational how?

Sorry, you had the wrong idea from the beginning so I won't answer that. Maybe if you supply the correct idea, then ask how it is rational.

[charles cure]

Cyperium

Is rationality a term for taking away things don't evidenced from a theory? Is that all?

Then no theory would hold, since it need premissess.

no, rationality is a way of substantiating a particular claim. a hypothesis or premis in order to be valid must be supported with at least some evidence for its probability. the difference between a premise or hypothesis and the actual theory is the level of evidence that can be produced to support it.

God and Jesus and the teachings therein is the premiss of Christianity, it is something that is necessary for any rationality within the religion.

Thus Religion is in itself not irrational, the same as such a theory is not by itself irrational.

thats ridiculous. that doesnt even make any sense at all. the christian religion is irrational because there is little or no evidence for the hypothesis or premise that it has been based on. you can have an idea that doesnt make any sense, and theories based on it all you want, what really makes the difference when it comes to acceptance of a theory as partial or total fact is that you can provide convincing evidence on two counts:

1. that the premise or hypothesis is probable or at least possible, supported by some kind of evidence.

2. the processes or mechanisms by which the hypothetical thing or situation manifests itself must be shown to exist in some tangible and measureable way as supported by evidence gained through observation and/or experimentation.

religion fails these criteria miserably. thats why it isnt a rational theory.

Christianity would be empty without God or Jesus. The Big Bang theory would be empty without the Big Bang, the Big Bang which the theory tries to prove, is as such needed for the theory itself allthough unproven

there is a difference between the big bang and god. with god, there is no evidence whatsoever presented as to why or how god could exist, and then no evidence (even anecdotal) of the processes by which god creates things and manifests itself.
with the big bang, the theory openly admits no knowledge of preexisting conditions, and that all evidence of preexisting conditions may have either been destroyed in the initial explosion or may have drifted far beyond our current space exploring capabilities. that doesnt mean there isnt evidence for the bang actually having happened. the theory that has developed into what is now called the big bang theory provides an excellent framework for explaining many different types of phenomena observed in outer space, and conversely, these phenomena indicate that something similar to the big bang must have occured at some point in order for them to exist in their current form.
religious people wish they had that kind of evidence for god. you dont see any physics devotees walking around saying well i know the big bang happened because i had a vision of it, or "you only disbelieve in the big bang because you havent experienced it it the personal way that i have". trash.

[Cyperium]

Anytime I hear of “rationality” or “reason” being mentioned in a religious discussion I’m reminded of a drowning man grabbing his hair and trying to pull his head out of the relentless water to save himself.

It’s both funny and pathetic.

So you don't consider the context which it is in? That must be very frustrating. Just so you know, I DON'T appreciate being called pathetic.

[kenworth]

Kenworth, I don't know what ye're asking?? Have you read the thread? Please read the thread, then ask pertinent questions and I'll try my best to answer them.

But for now, I have no idea what ye're asking. It's almost like your post was meant for some other thread somewhere. Pleae, read the thread more carefully.

Baron Max

i was asking if you apply that same rational to all physics

[(Q)]

Ok...so explain logic

It is a system of reasoning and the principles that guide the reasoning.

So theories hold because they can be shown to be false? But not everything can be shown to be false!

If it can't be shown to be falsifiable, it won't hold as a theory. Can you provide examples of that which can't be shown to be false? Creationism for example?

The whole (string) theory is pretty much a premiss.

It is a mathematical assumption. So, the hypothesis is based on observations of the math. It may not be reality, though.

But some parts also include personal letters and historical descriptions of what happened at that time. I'm sure someone can explain this better for you.

No need to explain further. I'm not commenting on terrestrial or natural events written in the bible, whether they correspond to historical data or not.

observations are consistent with a theory doesn't make the theory true and observations are allways dependent on how they are interpreted.

That is a tired theist argument. Have you never conducted an experiment?

What observations have it explained?

One of the important observations is the recession of galaxies and their redshifts coupled with the isotropic and homogeneity of large scale space. The existence of the radiation background, its temperature and relative motion.

Can it not be explained differently?

There have been several attempts.

Or at least more easily?

Not as yet.

Does it really explain it? How can you be sure?

Yes, it does really explain it, that's why it is accepted theory. One simply has to take the time to understand it. And if there were to be any alterations, it would only be to tweak current theory as opposed to replacing it with something entirely different.