Not true. Quantum mechanics can present confusing data and follow rules we don't fully understand. The interactions that go on may be counterintuitive but the discipline "makes sense"; scientists perform experiments, gather the data, and make theories and conclusions based on that data. Religion on the other hand makes theories and conclusions, fabricates data, and then forbid or decry experiments.

Suppose a scientist and a religious person were to observe something that appeared to be illogical, such as a chunk of metal hovering above the ground. The religious person could solve the illogical situation by concluding God did it, a conclusion that does not require evidence or a lot of effort. The scientist would have to study the situation in depth to see if it actually conformed to the principles he/she already knew about, just applied in an unexpected way. Failing that, they could add another principle to their knowledge. Just because seemingly illogical situations can occur in the world does not mean that everything is illogical, or that nothing can be illogical.

Perhaps I should explain my statement in more depth: "It is religion, it never makes any sense." A logically valid argument can be made for religion, just not a "sound" argument. The issue is that the premises of arguments for religion are either untrue, unproven, or impossible to prove. This is why religions are based on "faith", if anyone could provide sound premises to a logically valid argument for religion then it would be a science.

From a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul from damnation is a fairly sound premise. I guess this only counts if I have a soul.

Quantum mechanics does present confusing data, there most certainly are rules that we don't understand. The observations of quantum mechanics are by nature counter intuitive. What we are left with are not concrete answers to the the nature of the universe. We are only left with our interpretation of the observations. In my mind we are left with a deeper appreciation of our lack of understanding, even as we think we understand more. It can and should be humbling.

Richard Feynman described it best when he compared our knowledge of the universe to a game of chess. We may know the rules, how the pieces move. But to watch two masters play we will be lost to the depth of their moves. What seems logical to one of them, will seem counter intuitive to me the novice on the side line. I liked that analogy.

We have such sophisticated notions of who we are in these modern ages. Based on mountains of scientific observation. We use this mountain of observation and our sophisticated notion of who we think we are to disprove the existence of God? I think this is laughable.

I do think I should qualify a few things now. I am only participating in this discussion honestly. I do not think that anyone should believe the same things I believe. Nor do I feel compelled to save anyones, including my own everlasting soul. (the lawyer on my shoulder made me put that last statement in)

I think you are confusing a conclusion with a premise. A premise is basically where you set up the ground rules for the argument. To steal an example, we have the argument: "Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal." The premises of the argument is that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal. This argument is both valid and sound.

Your conclusion is basically "Religion will save my everlasting soul from damnation." This requires many premises, one of which would be "I have an everlasting soul." Even one premise being false leads to the entire argument being unsound, and your conclusion is based on many extremely questionable premises.

Science does not try to disprove the existence of God; scientists are acutely aware of their lack of all-encompassing data. Science simply requires a logical reason or empirical observation to support a belief. What puts religion and science at odds is that science is so darn SUCCESSFUL! Look around you at all the things you are thankful for, and even those you don't usually consider. Your family is healthy, you have plenty of food and shelter, and you have all these nifty gadgets. None of that came about by someone kneeling and praying to a god, or beamed down like mana from heaven. All of that, every single scrap, came from people going out, looking at the world, and figuring out how it works so it would work for them. The process is painstaking and difficult but it WORKS. What has religion given us?

My conclusion is certainly not that religion will save my everlasting soul, please read me exactly. I stand by the statement that from a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul is a sound place to start.

You are correct, science does not try to disprove God, people use science to back up their own beliefs. I don't think science supports the belief that God does not exist. I think that the sciences support the existence rather than the non-existence of God. That's just me. I can use science just as well as a non believer. I don't think scientific observation passes judgement on the matter. We do.

Your question about what religion has given us, is a good question. Religion is not God. I think there are some people within various religions who are, and aspire to be Godly, humble, unselfish, of service to their fellow man, quiet men and women. This is probably the best thing that religion has given us. The more important question in my mind, is what has God given us. To my thinking He has given us the desire, and ability to go out and make the nifty devices and live in the world by the various methods that we have, within the various social contexts that we have in the world.

I don't think that religion itself is a bad thing, though I'm not a religious man. Wars that people ascribe to religion more often then not have been power struggles. Power struggles between cultures, economies, societies. Religion has really been a motivating factor, or cover for the real reasons that wars have been fought.

The idea behind making a premise is to choose something that the reader of the argument will agree is sound. Starting from a point too far into the argument where the reader does not agree with the premises does not mean the reader just has to respect your beliefs, it means you have a poorly crafted, unsound argument. As I said, your statement requires its own argument since it is not self-evident, and those premises should not be formed from whole cloth.

Only if you're selling something, or trying to convert someone, not if you're just stating personal beliefs and don't care if anyone agrees. Not everyone is combative.

I can only choose topics, put forth premises that you the reader think are sound?

I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I'm not putting forth arguments that my premises will logically lead you to change your conclusions about anything.

I was thinking this was a friendly discussion of our beliefs and ideas about science and God. I understand that these ideas, beliefs and conclusions may be different based on life experiences.

Or if you are trying to have a meaningful discussion. If you just want to post statements without soliciting replies you can do that with yourself and Notepad. Give yourself a high five whenever it is appropriate.

Exactly. A discussion implies an exchange of ideas, informal debate, "consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc." You seem to think everyone showing up and making statements which are not open to exploration is a discussion. I don't think that leads to a rewarding thread; there is nothing to gain other than kudos from those who agree with you.

Besides, joining a conversation just to give your opinion and then getting defensive when questioned is a little rude. How would you like it if someone gave you their opinion and then was like "I don't have to justify myself to you!" when you asked them about it? What are you here for then, to talk at me rather than with me?

I don't see where we have strayed from the informal debate yet. I've justified myself just fine up til now, I'm not sure if you are still talking about me. You must be, since the majority of posts up til now have been ours. In short, I'm confused as to why you are posting this. Is there something you would like me to justify?

HA! :bites tongue

not at you, Joe. Just in general.

No, the discussion began and continues to be about logic and your misunderstanding of premises IMO. I am not asking you to justify your beliefs, I am simply pointing out that it appears you don't understand *how* to justify beliefs. Part of the motivation for this is less selfish than you may first assume; this misunderstanding means that you don't understand how I justify my own beliefs. After all, you likened quantum mechanics to your own tenuous suppositions about your eternal soul.

you are not asking me to justify my beliefs, understandable now that I know that you don't think I know how to justify my beliefs.

I have not likened quantum mechanics to my soul. I have only stated that there are logical inconsistencies in observations in the field of quantum mechanics. For instance, logical inconsistencies in observation lead us to see things like Bells Theorem as true/provable. Logical inconsistencies in observation lead us to ask questions and dig deeper into non-locality and try to find answers such as hidden variables. Although Bells Theorem seems to point to QM more then hidden variables. I assume you know these things. Your statement that It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies, made me think of quantum mechanics.

It is true that I believe that God exists, I base this belief on my experience in life. I don't ask anyone else to believe the same thing that I believe. The lens of my perception is indeed colored by this. I think I've made that abundantly clear up until now in our discussion. The lens of perception is also colored with my atheist friends. I personally believe that you don't like what I have to say here in this forum, and are trying to attack the form of my rhetoric, saying it is "poorly crafted". Yes it's true, I admit it, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. I have not been defensive, and I have not said anywhere in our discussion that what I say is not open to exploration or discussion. I have not likened my soul to quantum mechanics anywhere in our discussion. If you continue to make statements that are simply not true about our discussion I will assume that you have some other agenda in mind then honest discussion. As far as I'm concerned it will call into serious question your integrity.

I would be interested in hearing about those experiences in your life that contributed to your belief in God. I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion. All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.

What is your theory about how this usually starts with people, what do you mean by this?

Yes, that would be that, unless one (or both) of the parties is trying to convince the other they are wrong, rather than just learning why they feel the way they do.